should we re-think age limits? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Bill O'Rights · 07-01-2009, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

Either no taxation or taxation with representation.

Will, nowhere, in the Bill of Rights, are you guaranteed no taxation without representation. In that document, the two are very seperate and very distinct. "No Taxation Without Representation!" was a phrase used by Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, in a sermon in Boston, in 1750. I happen to agree with it, but that's not the point.

Voting is a right guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. As is the right to keep and bear arms, in the 2nd amendment. If, by your reasoning, 14 year olds should be afforded the right to vote based on the fact that they are tax paying citizens, then should these same 14 year old citizens be permitted to own and carry firearms? I have little doubt that you would be one of the first to join me in a resounding "Hell No!". (though for clearly different reasons) There is a reason that 18 is considered the age of majority. Children do not, and should not, have rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. They do not live under a Democracy. They live under the iron fisted dictatorship of their parents.

Willravel · 07-01-2009, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Will, nowhere, in the Bill of Rights, are you guaranteed no taxation without representation. In that document, the two are very seperate and very distinct. "No Taxation Without Representation!" was a phrase used by Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, in a sermon in Boston, in 1750. I happen to agree with it, but that's not the point.

Nowhere did I say I was quoting the Bill of Rights with that particular phrase and sentiment, I was directly quoting protesters in the 13 colonies in response to the Sugar Act (among other things) but was referencing several parts of the Constitution that talk about representation including the 15th. Note, though, I said "probably". I'm no constitutional scholar and I'm certainly no judge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Voting is a right guaranteed by the 15th Amendment. As is the right to keep and bear arms, in the 2nd amendment. If, by your reasoning, 14 year olds should be afforded the right to vote based on the fact that they are tax paying citizens, then should these same 14 year old citizens be permitted to own and carry firearms? I have little doubt that you would be one of the first to join me in a resounding "Hell No!". (though for clearly different reasons) There is a reason that 18 is considered the age of majority. Children do not, and should not, have rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. They do not live under a Democracy. They live under the iron fisted dictatorship of their parents.

You'd be wrong. My take on guns is that I cannot stand their existence but I must recognize the Second Amendment and the SCOTUS rulings on it. If some asshole adult can have a gun because of some stupidly outdated law, I can't imagine why we shouldn't give them to kids. I think we both know that adults are commonly prone to stupid decisions and stupid mistakes that make the Second Amendment seem like outright lunacy. If we are to accept such lunacy, allowing any and every yahoo to have a gun, what the heck kind of arbitrary line is 18? What flash of maturity and good judgment occurs between 17 and 18 that means the difference between rightfully having a weapon of murder and not having that weapon?

It's the illusion of responsible governance. "Well yes, these can do nothing but harm or kill, but at least we aren't giving them to children!" Look how responsible we all are.

Jozrael · 07-01-2009, 09:10 PM

@Xerxys: I'm just saying make the age of consent 12. Not make it legal for a 45 year old man to coerce a 13 year old child into having sex.

Bill O'Rights · 07-01-2009, 09:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

If some asshole adult can have a gun because of some stupidly outdated law, I can't imagine why we shouldn't give them to kids.

Look Will, I know that you love to argue, and to disagree with me just to argue, but did you really type that with a straight face? Seriously?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Willravel

I think we both know that adults are commonly prone to stupid decisions and stupid mistakes that make the Second Amendment seem like outright lunacy.

Phhht, well yeeeaah. I think my first marriage illustrates your point rather nicely.

That point conceded. But at some point we have to pick a point where we say that our children are grown, and it's time for them to assume full responsibility for their actions and enjoy the rights and privileges that come with it. For things like voting, gun ownership, military service and so on...that arbitrary age should be 18. We have to set the bar somewhere. 18 makes as much if not more sense, to me, as any other. 14? No freakin' way, man.

Willravel · 07-01-2009, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Look Will, I know that you love to argue, and to disagree with me just to argue, but did you really type that with a straight face? Seriously?

I don't argue for the sake or arguing. The Second Amendment made sense hundreds of years ago, but it makes no sense now, and yet many people support it. My argument is more to point out the true absurdity of giving any idiot a gun by pointing out the hypocrisy of not allowing a 17 year old to have a gun because of some sort of inability to be responsible. It's a silly and unsupportable double standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill O'Rights

Phhht, well yeeeaah. I think my first marriage illustrates your point rather nicely.

That point conceded. But at some point we have to pick a point where we say that our children are grown, and it's time for them to assume full responsibility for their actions and enjoy the rights and privileges that come with it. For things like voting, gun ownership, military service and so on...that arbitrary age should be 18. We have to set the bar somewhere. 18 makes as much if not more sense, to me, as any other. 14? No freakin' way, man.

We have a long history of insisting on setting the bar for rights somewhere arbitrary because we assume there needs to be a bar.

The exclusion of any group from franchise requires positive justification, you can't just rest on precedent or your laurels. What's your actual reason for not wanting kids to vote? Is it because you don't think they would be responsible voters? Do you think their votes would be heavily influenced or controlled? Do you think kids are already represented by parents? Do you think kids will vote for selfish or illogical policies? All of these are easily debunkable.

SecretMethod70 · 07-01-2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

I gave my daughter (age 9) a glass of wine with our Sunday lunch. It was a thimble full of sparkling rose with a top up of soda water (basically just enough wine to give colour to the water), but I see nothing odd about that - it's how I was brought up, and I hope that by the time she's looking out for herself in social situations, she has enough experience of what alcohol is for and how it works to not end up as a drunken slut puking in the street.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. You didn't give your daughter some wine in order to make her like you more out of some desperate attempt to be her friend instead of her parent. Right now, there are too many people who want to be the "cool" parent by throwing alcohol-filled parties for their kids. I'd rather just give those kids the ability to do it themselves and strip those parents of that method of befriending their kids.

ItWasMe · 07-01-2009, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel_

I gave my daughter (age 9) a glass of wine with our Sunday lunch. It was a thimble full of sparkling rose with a top up of soda water (basically just enough wine to give colour to the water), but I see nothing odd about that - it's how I was brought up, and I hope that by the time she's looking out for herself in social situations, she has enough experience of what alcohol is for and how it works to not end up as a drunken slut puking in the street.

You can already do that over here, either for educational purpose or religious purpose. Your child, not anyone else's child. Getting them drunk is another story.

Drinking: 21 Younger if parent is present to teach you how to drink responsibly (such as Daniel above)

Consent: 18

Marriage: 25 (I was actually leaning more towards age 30)
Live your life a bit first, seriously. Go to school. Get a job. Play the field. Get to know yourself. Learn how to support yourself.

Voting: 18

Driving: permit at 16, license at 18. License at 17 if you have completed a driving course and have a job.

Military enlistment: 21
Young adults need time to see there is life other than the military. Joining the military should be an informed choice, not something done because they were so young they weren't sure what else to do (many of my classmates did that).

Xerxys · 07-02-2009, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jozrael

@Xerxys: I'm just saying make the age of consent 12. Not make it legal for a 45 year old man to coerce a 13 year old child into having sex.

Dude, I shudder at the thought of two 13 year olds going at it!! How in heavens name will a person under the age of 16 be able to deal with the psycho-emotional ramifications of sex?

Sex my friends is a confusing and complex issue. I have no idea why it's downplayed so much. I'm not saying list the 13 year olds as sex offenders, educate them by all means ... just don't trivialize it with the "but muuuuum, everyone's doing it" mentality.

FuglyStick · 07-02-2009, 09:03 AM

Sexual maturity varies tremendously from one person to another, so I'll leave that to someone smarter than myself

For everything else, a person should be granted all the rights of an adult at 18. I know it's a oft repeated argument, but it has merit, so I'll repeat it again--if you're old enough to enlist in the military, you're old enough to drink a beer.

That also includes driving. The driving age was set at 16 at a time when young people played a larger role in familial responsibilities, especially in agrarian settings. That is no longer the case.

FelixP · 07-02-2009, 05:50 PM

voting-18 (it is)
drinking-18
military-17 (it is, with parental consent)
driving-17

Reese · 07-03-2009, 10:19 AM

I just ran across this article. Age of Consent for Religion.

Let?s have an Age of Consent for Religion

Quote:

WE like comedian Mark Thomas and his no-nonsense, sabre-toothed approach to religion.

And we were particularly amused by the suggestion on his Radio 4 The Manifesto programme last night that an Age of Consent law should be slapped on religion.

This is what audience member Laura proposed, to enthusiastic applause:

There should be a minimum age of consent before anyone joins a religion, because the vast majority of religions’ members were put through ceremonies by their parents when they were far too young to know what was going on. And while many of them renounce their faith when they are older, indoctrinating children allows religions to claim more members and more influence than is actually justified.

Asked on the programme for his thoughts, comedian Robin Ince – “a torch-bearer for atheism” – went further, by suggesting that bits of the Bible should should be restricted to readers over a certain age. Revelation, for example, should carry an 18R certificate

You can hear the entire clip here.

This is not the first time I have heard it suggested that religion should keep its clammy mitts off children. In a much more serious piece, award-winning blogger Robert Sharp said in 2007:

Many countries around the world, including the UK, have an Age of Consent law. By stipulating the age at which one can legally be said to have given consent to sexual relations, it effectively says that children under that age are not capable of making such an important decision for themselves. However, I do not believe such laws exist for the adoption of a religion. This is in many ways odd. Choosing a faith (or none) is arguably a more important decision for a person, than whether to have sex or not. Most religious people cite their faith as the most important thing about them. They would surely be the first to agree that it outweighs the very human choice over whether to indulge in intercourse or not on any given evening.

sign

Its a conundrum for the religionists, who are happy to use the language of choice, responsibility and rights when it comes to promoting their faith, yet deny similar choices can exist for sex and sexuality. I say that if a 14-year-old is old enough to make a decision about their God, then they are also ready to make a decision about sex! Alternatively, if a 14-year-old cannot make a responsible decision about sex, then they cannot possibly make a responsible decision about God. Note how children like Lydia Playfoot are only deemed capable of making a responsible choice when they choose chastity. In that case, is it any kind of choice at all? Should it be respected in human rights law?

My suggestion is to broaden the definition of the ‘Age of Consent’ to include a consent to religion too. By this rationale, children could still, of course, wear religious symbols in school… but below the age of consent, they would not be deemed, in a legal context, to have chosen to wear those things for themselves.

Rather, they have been dressed by their parents. If religionists wish to assimilate young members into their Church, and use their ‘choices’ as the basis of a campaign… then they have to allow those young members the choice to have sex too. Alternatively, if they cannot stomach such a permissive idea, then the religious choices of school-children can no longer be the basis of a Rights campaign in the courts.

Either way, The ‘Age of Consent’ will remain a law designed to protect youngsters from the predatory influence of adults.

I think it's a great idea. How can you really be dedicated and faithful to a religion if you never know the alternatives.

Willravel · 07-03-2009, 11:03 AM

I totally agree it's a good idea, but you'd have religious groups crying foul. I think that particular idea may have its day after a few decades when the religious people are about equal to unreligious, but for the time being I'm afraid that kind of idea can only really take root in less religious countries in places like Europe.

Vinniccio · 07-05-2009, 12:22 PM

I have found that from reading the statistics of different sites, and different organisations, that the pregnancy rate, and the promiscuity rate has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY since the early to mid seventies, and even more severely in the nineties and 2000s. I would like to see the age of consent raised to 18, as well as the driving age. Drinking age should be eighteen as well. If you are an adult and can do anything you want at eighteen, then you should have the choice to drink as well. I'm not saying that it's wise for some to do this, however, it doesn't make sense to say I am an adult at 18 and that I can vote, and do ANYTHING, EXCEPT drink. Europe has (depending on the country) no drinking age, or it is 16-18 depending on the country. They have a healthy respect for alcohol. That also needs to be better enstilled in this country. As for voting, I think 18 is fine. I find that most immature 18 year olds don't care and are too busy partying to concern themselves with politics. I'm not saying it's right, it's rather sad actually, but I'd be more concerned with the consistency of the law. If you notice, some are tried as adults at 18 and some are not, in a court of law. If the books say one is an adult at 16 or 18, then they should be tried as such regardless of the crime. Otherwise, raise the age of concent to 21. As for sex...it's a big responsibility and not everyone has the same (and some don't have any) religious beliefs. I think that a law should be passed that if you are under the age of 16 or 18 and are caught in sexual activity, you should be held accountable for it. There are too many people putting themselves in positions because they are letting their hormones rule their thoughts rather than common sense. In the throws of passion a 14 year old is not going to say, oh it's possible that I could winde up pregers, and have to raise a kid for the next 18-20 years. He and she will not think that abortion is a big thing, but that is risky, AND expensive. It's something that is taken too lightly. Drinking under age I don't have a problem with within itself, but the fact that a 14 year old likes to go about doing things to the fullest extent (thus risking getting drunk) it raises concern where you have to think...will that 14 yr old truly consider the consequences, and if they do consider them, do they really fully understand the ramifications of their decision. A kid moving out at 16 has very limited view of what it's like to live as an adult. You have bills, and the people you pay your bills to don't always give second chances like Mum and Dad might. They also tack on " consequences " for those that they do give "second chances" to. Not only that, but you have to do EVERYTHING on your own. Responsible for your automobile or form of transportation, shopping for food, paying medical bills, paying household bills. Then there are the incindences where things don't concern bills. You hit another car...and yours is totalled...no big deal you buy another one. But what if the other person sues you (regardless of whos fault it is)? Can you emotionally handle it? Mum and Dad can't go to court for you. They can't write a letter or promise you are going to work until the damages are paid off. What if you go out with your friends and get drunk one night, and get caught? You're an adult now, your parents aren't going to spring you for it. They can't. It's not their responsibility, what about your medical bills that are unpaid...sooner or later you are going to be refused health benefits because you can't pay the pending expenses due off.

I would leave it where it is rather than lower it, but at the same time...I'd only raise the ages if there has to be some change...but lowering it would be a mistake.

It's the proverbial problem of the child testing the waters... you draw the line in the sand, they are going to cross it at some point...it's human nature.

Jetée · 07-05-2009, 12:38 PM

Has anybody raised the point about legalized gambling yet?

In the US, it is directly tied into a person's legal age of consumption, and therefore, in many regions throughout the country, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to even step foot on the casino floor.

ring · 07-05-2009, 01:09 PM

If the drinking age is lowered to 18, here in the US,
I would like to see the legal BAC levels for driving,
lowered to, .02 ( for drivers of all ages, also)

I'm not sure how problematic this could be, in practice.
There have been some instances of persons with medical conditions,
that can skew a breathalyzer test.

raeanna74 · 07-05-2009, 02:10 PM

It does irk me that some kids who are 18 or 19 just spout what they're hearing at home or from their friends but isn't that the way some 30, 40, 60, 80 yr olds are? Some people never think for themselves and never seem to learn from their or our past either. I doubt we could ever get the age for voting changed.

As for the Legal Drinking age... I thought kids were allowed to drink with a legal guardian present in their legal guardians home. If that's the case then kids could drink even now, the way you did. Too many kids aren't as educated as you were with regards to how to drink responsibly. If the legal age was changed then we'd have younger, less responsible kids drinking without adult supervision and more often. It's bad enough the kids to manage to get liquor now even though it's not legal.

And Finally... as to the age of consent/statutory rape age. I don't think it should be lowered but I do think that we should rethink cases such as a 17 yr old dating another 17 yr old who turns 18 and suddenly mom and dad have an issue with their little girl having sex with an 18 yr old. If they had a relationship before one of them turned 18 the 18 yr old should not be able to be charged with statutory rape. It's unfair to the couple and especially the one who happened to turn 18. Like a pair of teens are going to suddenly stop having sex when one of them turns 18. Beyond that, I think there should be more freedom given to the judges to not crack down on kids who are underage and who have sex with older kids or adults. If you think about it, a 16 or 17 yr old who ends up having sex with a 30 yr old could possibly have a better experience than two teens together, especially if the 30 yr old truely cares about the 16 yr old. * Please note that I'd prefer kids waited till they were 18 anyway but that's another thread on it's own. The biggest thing about not changing the age for kids to have sex is that kids need as much encouragement as possible to avoid having sex and especially getting pregnant until they finish highshool at least. I personally don't want to encourage kids to drop out of highschool by allowing them to get married earlier. There is so much breaking up and making up going on at that age that I think we'd probably end up with a much higher divorce rate AND higher dropout rate. What good would that do?

Jozrael · 07-05-2009, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xerxys

Dude, I shudder at the thought of two 13 year olds going at it!! How in heavens name will a person under the age of 16 be able to deal with the psycho-emotional ramifications of sex?

Sex my friends is a confusing and complex issue. I have no idea why it's downplayed so much. I'm not saying list the 13 year olds as sex offenders, educate them by all means ... just don't trivialize it with the "but muuuuum, everyone's doing it" mentality.

Yes, to me the idea of 2 13-year-olds going at it is distasteful. However, the age of consent is a law in place to punish one or the other of the parties engaged in the sex. I don't believe either of the 13 year olds should be punished. Educated? ABSOLUTELY. Punished? No.

In NJ, there are tiers to the age of consent. If you are above 18, anything goes. If you are 16 or up (our age of consent), anything goes except caretakers...that must wait til 18. If at least one party is below the age of 16, it is still legal until the two parties differ in age by at least 4 years. So a 14 year old and a 17 year old is legal. However, if either party is 12 or under, it is illegal, end of story. If there were 12 year olds having sex...yes, it's illegal, but I think it'd be the parents that were punished, rather the children.

So, I think that's a pretty reasonable system, instead of just 'ANYONE UNDER 18 CAN NEVER HAVE SEX OR BE THROWN IN JAIL', which seems to be a prevailing school of thought.

P.S. When you say 'my friends' it makes me feel exactly the same as when Jon McCain said it: as if I'm being patronized. Just a thought. Nor do i want to trivialize this issue. Legalizing something doesn't mean encouraging it. Just making it so that in the above example, a 17 year old and a 14 year old, the 17 year old isn't thrown in jail regardless of the situation. Which is what happens in a state where the only law is 16 = age of consent.

---------- Post added at 07:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by raeanna74

It does irk me that some kids who are 18 or 19 just spout what they're hearing at home or from their friends but isn't that the way some 30, 40, 60, 80 yr olds are? Some people never think for themselves and never seem to learn from their or our past either. I doubt we could ever get the age for voting changed.

As for the Legal Drinking age... I thought kids were allowed to drink with a legal guardian present in their legal guardians home. If that's the case then kids could drink even now, the way you did. Too many kids aren't as educated as you were with regards to how to drink responsibly. If the legal age was changed then we'd have younger, less responsible kids drinking without adult supervision and more often. It's bad enough the kids to manage to get liquor now even though it's not legal.

And Finally... as to the age of consent/statutory rape age. I don't think it should be lowered but I do think that we should rethink cases such as a 17 yr old dating another 17 yr old who turns 18 and suddenly mom and dad have an issue with their little girl having sex with an 18 yr old. If they had a relationship before one of them turned 18 the 18 yr old should not be able to be charged with statutory rape. It's unfair to the couple and especially the one who happened to turn 18. Like a pair of teens are going to suddenly stop having sex when one of them turns 18. Beyond that, I think there should be more freedom given to the judges to not crack down on kids who are underage and who have sex with older kids or adults. If you think about it, a 16 or 17 yr old who ends up having sex with a 30 yr old could possibly have a better experience than two teens together, especially if the 30 yr old truely cares about the 16 yr old. * Please note that I'd prefer kids waited till they were 18 anyway but that's another thread on it's own. The biggest thing about not changing the age for kids to have sex is that kids need as much encouragement as possible to avoid having sex and especially getting pregnant until they finish highshool at least. I personally don't want to encourage kids to drop out of highschool by allowing them to get married earlier. There is so much breaking up and making up going on at that age that I think we'd probably end up with a much higher divorce rate AND higher dropout rate. What good would that do?

Hopefully this automerges my doublepost cuz I'm lazy. xD.

Absolutely agreed: this is another farcical example showing the inanity of a hard and fast 'age of consent'. However, when u bring up your 16 v 30. Let's change that a bit, let's say 13 and 30. Suddenly, it seems a lot more predatory to me. Even if the 30 year old truly cares for the 13 year old...I think there's way too much pressure on the girl at that age because of the age/maturity difference. It's just not a relationship among equals, and at that age, that's a problem to me. Predatory is the key word.

Vinniccio · 07-05-2009, 06:54 PM

Jozrael, I totally agree with your first response to Xerxys...I have to process the other one thoughl. I knew you were intelligent beyond book smarts.

Xerxys · 07-05-2009, 11:37 PM

I dunno Jozrael, I kinda like the "anyone under 18 will DIE if they have sex" law because really, kids are easy to scare into submission ....

No, that came out wrong.

I'm of the opinion that many people will inherently do what is right. In this case, by heeding their parents wishes as well as following whatever education (I still think should be enforced) on the entire issue.

The reason I think to lower the age of consent would be counteractive is because it now gives children freedoms to toy around with sex. If you throw your hands up with the "they're gonna do it anyway" argument ... it defeats the purpose. As far as punishment goes ... well, it's a law. You don't break laws, period. I want the punishment to be reasonable, don't assign draconian punishments on kids who are constantly confused about their state of puberty/sexuality.

I'll try to avoid using "dude/my friends/man" in my posts, I write how I talk sometimes ...

Jozrael · 07-06-2009, 03:02 PM

I guess the 'dude/myfriends/etc.' thing is very subjective, cuz the other ones you listed don't bother me at all. I guess it's just cuz McCain iconized the 'my friends' phrase and left a terribly bad taste in my mouth because of it.

On topic!

I think some people will inherently do what is right...by -why is having sex before the age of majority wrong-. I think that's an incredibly subjective topic. On the one hand you have the religious folk who think it's wrong to do before marriage. I don't think their opinions are relevant to the law of when it is -legal- to have sex.

I don't think sex is inherently wrong, period. I think it's a natural, amazing human function. And I don't want to bar that from people based on age simply because some people think it's morally wrong.

The issue, I think, that you are focused on is the downsides of sex. It's a huge emotional investment, and can result in pregnancy/disease. Plus, there are sexual predators. These are valid points. However, again, I don't think it's my place to forbid people from having sex because I wasn't emotionally ready for it at a certain age...they may very well be. That leaves the risk of pregnancy/disease and predators as I think the only reasons for an age of consent.

I would be far more supportive of additional education along the pregnancy/disease front. Tbh, my education trained me well for it. I was realistically prepared ever since high school, and the basics in middle school. Perhaps moving those up a couple years to provide the tools for minors to understand sex better would be a wise choice.

Then, there is the issue of predators. As I said, that's tricky ground. While I don't support a 'anyone under age X cannot have sex' hard and fast rule, we must look to -protect- the minors from predatory adults. That's why I'm supportive of the laws in my state, which while more complex, more adequately address the issue of predators. Really, the age of consent in NJ is 12, but there are additional restrictions up til age 16 (and then a single one til 18). I think that's an ideal system, and very maturely dealt with.

I will never use the 'they'll do it anyway' argument...because I don't think there's anything wrong with them doing it. I'm not opposed to teenagers having sex. I'm adamantly for protection from predators and additional education, though.

I repeat myself ><. Sorry, just trying to make sure I addressed all of your points.

As far as breaking laws, I think we can all agree that we have great laws, but we also have unjust laws, stupid laws, unnecessary laws, and possibly even laws that violate the human rights of some of our citizens. Just creating a law to enforce an outdated mode of viewpoint (the religious right enforcing their SEX IS BAD message) is counterproductive and possibly even unconstitutional. Hence why I don't think there should be -any- punishment on the kids. The realities of pregnancy and disease enforced through vigorous education and cautioning parents with their well-meaning values should be enough deterrents, in my opinion.

dksuddeth · 07-06-2009, 03:27 PM

voting - should stay 18 even though the current times seems to indicate that 18-21 year olds haven't been taught about the real world yet

driving - should stay at 16

consent - texas has it about right at 17

drinking - should be lowered back to 18 and the feds should cut the power trip out of their ass by withholding monies to states that don't keep it at 21. It's absolutely non-sensical for a man or a woman who can pick up a rifle and be sent to fight/die for their country, but not drink a beer afterwards.

most other things should be kept or moved to 18. as time has marched forward from the days when a 16 year old was considered a full grown man, we've been forced to extend the development of our children at the behest of the government. It would only destabilize society if we forced the people to accept adulthood at 16.

DaniGirl · 07-11-2009, 09:45 AM

I thought about this a little more and I change my view. 18 for everything. If we are old enough to vote, drive, live on our own then we should be old enough to drink and have sex. The age of consent should be when you are an adult. Im not saying that you shouldn't have sex until you are 18, Im just saying that you shouldn't be able to fuck a 20 year old or older until you are 18. Its not that long to wait.

Strange Famous · 07-11-2009, 10:31 AM

In the UK you can work and pay tax at 16, cant vote until 18... I see that as a mjor flaw.

If you are coerced to fund the state you should have the right to vote for the part of it that is accountable.

In the UK the age of consent is quite confused between 16 and 18

You can work at 13 part time (like as a paper boy), but you can work fulltime at 16 (although I think they are trying to force people to stay in education till 18 soon)

You can screw and smoke at 16, join the army at 17, drive a moped at 16, a car at 17, vote at 18, drink booze at 18, in a pub (but 16 in a restaurant with a meal) marry at 16 (or 18 without parental consent), work at 16, you legally are an adult at 18... until very recently the gay sex age of consent was different to the straight sex age of consent but that changed 10 years or so.

I think it makes sense to set one "age of consent" which I would place at 16.

I find it incredible that you can join the army at 17 (although you arent supposed to fight till 18) but you cant rent an action movie legally. That you can be married at 16, but not rent a movie with nudity in legally. That you can pay tax but not vote.

At 16 a lot of people arent grown up, but Im not grown up at 31...

Zeraph · 07-11-2009, 11:22 AM

Ideally (not saying it could work at the moment) there should be no age related laws at all. Just tests for said activities. The rest have to do with responsible parenting. Laws can't change that. Laws are not a substitute for wisdom and guidance.

Want to take part in politics? prove that you know something about it. Nothing too difficult, just be able to name a few presidents, name a few important laws, that kind of thing. Pick some multiple choice answers about how the government works. If you can understand what's going on there's no reason you shouldn't be able to vote.

Want to drink? Up to your parents. They already control the rest of your safety, why is drinking so special?

Want to drive? Prove it (IMO the test should be harder though).

Sex? Up to you and those that take care of you. No, that doesn't mean 40 year olds will marry 12 year olds. There are still (not sure what their name is) laws that take into account state of mind. If a 40 year old sleeps with a 12 year old the kid was almost certainly taken advantage of and the 40 year old can still be gotten for a new appropriately modified version of statutory rape or those state of mind rape laws. But 12 year olds that want to sleep with other kids? Why not? It'll be the same as it is now. My friends and I started having sex in 8th grade. The responsibility is still on the parents. The law or lack of wouldn't change that.

Military and such would be state of mind and physical related. They already have those tests in place. Just need to add a bit to the state of mind part and make sure they're making their own decision.

Everyone matures at different paces, physically and mentally. Arbitrary age laws are worse than none at all because it gives people the illusion that they don't have to take responsibility for their kids. That the government and FCC will do it for them. And they are arbitrary. Plenty of other working countries have much much lower age laws or none at all and they work fine on that fact.

Jozrael · 07-11-2009, 03:27 PM

ThAt sounds fantastic to me, but writing sufficiently objective tests would be difficult, to say the least. There would be ways to skew the tests towards your party and I'm sure they'd create even more fights in our political infrastructure that wouldn't necessarily end in the best laws being passed.

07-02-2009, 09:03 AM	#49 (permalink)
FuglyStick WHEEEE! Whee! Whee! WHEEEE! Location: Southern Illinois	Sexual maturity varies tremendously from one person to another, so I'll leave that to someone smarter than myself For everything else, a person should be granted all the rights of an adult at 18. I know it's a oft repeated argument, but it has merit, so I'll repeat it again--if you're old enough to enlist in the military, you're old enough to drink a beer. That also includes driving. The driving age was set at 16 at a time when young people played a larger role in familial responsibilities, especially in agrarian settings. That is no longer the case. __________________ AZIZ! LIGHT!

07-02-2009, 05:50 PM	#50 (permalink)
FelixP Insane Location: I'm up they see me I'm down.	voting-18 (it is) drinking-18 military-17 (it is, with parental consent) driving-17 __________________ Free will lies not in the ability to craft your own fate, but in not knowing what your fate is. --Me "I have just returned from visting the Marines at the front, and there is not a finer fighting organization in the world." --Douglas MacArthur

07-05-2009, 12:38 PM	#54 (permalink)
Jetée The Reforms Location: Rarely, if ever, here or there, but always in transition	Has anybody raised the point about legalized gambling yet? In the US, it is directly tied into a person's legal age of consumption, and therefore, in many regions throughout the country, it is illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to even step foot on the casino floor. __________________ As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world (that is the myth of the Atomic Age) as in being able to remake ourselves. —Mohandas K. Gandhi

07-05-2009, 02:10 PM	#56 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	It does irk me that some kids who are 18 or 19 just spout what they're hearing at home or from their friends but isn't that the way some 30, 40, 60, 80 yr olds are? Some people never think for themselves and never seem to learn from their or our past either. I doubt we could ever get the age for voting changed. As for the Legal Drinking age... I thought kids were allowed to drink with a legal guardian present in their legal guardians home. If that's the case then kids could drink even now, the way you did. Too many kids aren't as educated as you were with regards to how to drink responsibly. If the legal age was changed then we'd have younger, less responsible kids drinking without adult supervision and more often. It's bad enough the kids to manage to get liquor now even though it's not legal. And Finally... as to the age of consent/statutory rape age. I don't think it should be lowered but I do think that we should rethink cases such as a 17 yr old dating another 17 yr old who turns 18 and suddenly mom and dad have an issue with their little girl having sex with an 18 yr old. If they had a relationship before one of them turned 18 the 18 yr old should not be able to be charged with statutory rape. It's unfair to the couple and especially the one who happened to turn 18. Like a pair of teens are going to suddenly stop having sex when one of them turns 18. Beyond that, I think there should be more freedom given to the judges to not crack down on kids who are underage and who have sex with older kids or adults. If you think about it, a 16 or 17 yr old who ends up having sex with a 30 yr old could possibly have a better experience than two teens together, especially if the 30 yr old truely cares about the 16 yr old. * Please note that I'd prefer kids waited till they were 18 anyway but that's another thread on it's own. The biggest thing about not changing the age for kids to have sex is that kids need as much encouragement as possible to avoid having sex and especially getting pregnant until they finish highshool at least. I personally don't want to encourage kids to drop out of highschool by allowing them to get married earlier. There is so much breaking up and making up going on at that age that I think we'd probably end up with a much higher divorce rate AND higher dropout rate. What good would that do? __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

07-06-2009, 03:27 PM	#61 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	voting - should stay 18 even though the current times seems to indicate that 18-21 year olds haven't been taught about the real world yet driving - should stay at 16 consent - texas has it about right at 17 drinking - should be lowered back to 18 and the feds should cut the power trip out of their ass by withholding monies to states that don't keep it at 21. It's absolutely non-sensical for a man or a woman who can pick up a rifle and be sent to fight/die for their country, but not drink a beer afterwards. most other things should be kept or moved to 18. as time has marched forward from the days when a 16 year old was considered a full grown man, we've been forced to extend the development of our children at the behest of the government. It would only destabilize society if we forced the people to accept adulthood at 16. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

07-01-2009, 09:10 PM	#43 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	@Xerxys: I'm just saying make the age of consent 12. Not make it legal for a 45 year old man to coerce a 13 year old child into having sex.

07-03-2009, 11:03 AM	#52 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I totally agree it's a good idea, but you'd have religious groups crying foul. I think that particular idea may have its day after a few decades when the religious people are about equal to unreligious, but for the time being I'm afraid that kind of idea can only really take root in less religious countries in places like Europe.

07-05-2009, 12:22 PM	#53 (permalink)
Vinniccio Upright Location: Somewhere under the rainbow	I have found that from reading the statistics of different sites, and different organisations, that the pregnancy rate, and the promiscuity rate has gone up SIGNIFICANTLY since the early to mid seventies, and even more severely in the nineties and 2000s. I would like to see the age of consent raised to 18, as well as the driving age. Drinking age should be eighteen as well. If you are an adult and can do anything you want at eighteen, then you should have the choice to drink as well. I'm not saying that it's wise for some to do this, however, it doesn't make sense to say I am an adult at 18 and that I can vote, and do ANYTHING, EXCEPT drink. Europe has (depending on the country) no drinking age, or it is 16-18 depending on the country. They have a healthy respect for alcohol. That also needs to be better enstilled in this country. As for voting, I think 18 is fine. I find that most immature 18 year olds don't care and are too busy partying to concern themselves with politics. I'm not saying it's right, it's rather sad actually, but I'd be more concerned with the consistency of the law. If you notice, some are tried as adults at 18 and some are not, in a court of law. If the books say one is an adult at 16 or 18, then they should be tried as such regardless of the crime. Otherwise, raise the age of concent to 21. As for sex...it's a big responsibility and not everyone has the same (and some don't have any) religious beliefs. I think that a law should be passed that if you are under the age of 16 or 18 and are caught in sexual activity, you should be held accountable for it. There are too many people putting themselves in positions because they are letting their hormones rule their thoughts rather than common sense. In the throws of passion a 14 year old is not going to say, oh it's possible that I could winde up pregers, and have to raise a kid for the next 18-20 years. He and she will not think that abortion is a big thing, but that is risky, AND expensive. It's something that is taken too lightly. Drinking under age I don't have a problem with within itself, but the fact that a 14 year old likes to go about doing things to the fullest extent (thus risking getting drunk) it raises concern where you have to think...will that 14 yr old truly consider the consequences, and if they do consider them, do they really fully understand the ramifications of their decision. A kid moving out at 16 has very limited view of what it's like to live as an adult. You have bills, and the people you pay your bills to don't always give second chances like Mum and Dad might. They also tack on " consequences " for those that they do give "second chances" to. Not only that, but you have to do EVERYTHING on your own. Responsible for your automobile or form of transportation, shopping for food, paying medical bills, paying household bills. Then there are the incindences where things don't concern bills. You hit another car...and yours is totalled...no big deal you buy another one. But what if the other person sues you (regardless of whos fault it is)? Can you emotionally handle it? Mum and Dad can't go to court for you. They can't write a letter or promise you are going to work until the damages are paid off. What if you go out with your friends and get drunk one night, and get caught? You're an adult now, your parents aren't going to spring you for it. They can't. It's not their responsibility, what about your medical bills that are unpaid...sooner or later you are going to be refused health benefits because you can't pay the pending expenses due off. I would leave it where it is rather than lower it, but at the same time...I'd only raise the ages if there has to be some change...but lowering it would be a mistake. It's the proverbial problem of the child testing the waters... you draw the line in the sand, they are going to cross it at some point...it's human nature.

07-05-2009, 01:09 PM	#55 (permalink)
ring ░ Location: ❤	If the drinking age is lowered to 18, here in the US, I would like to see the legal BAC levels for driving, lowered to, .02 ( for drivers of all ages, also) I'm not sure how problematic this could be, in practice. There have been some instances of persons with medical conditions, that can skew a breathalyzer test.

07-05-2009, 06:54 PM	#58 (permalink)
Vinniccio Upright Location: Somewhere under the rainbow	Jozrael, I totally agree with your first response to Xerxys...I have to process the other one thoughl. I knew you were intelligent beyond book smarts.

07-05-2009, 11:37 PM	#59 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	I dunno Jozrael, I kinda like the "anyone under 18 will DIE if they have sex" law because really, kids are easy to scare into submission .... No, that came out wrong. I'm of the opinion that many people will inherently do what is right. In this case, by heeding their parents wishes as well as following whatever education (I still think should be enforced) on the entire issue. The reason I think to lower the age of consent would be counteractive is because it now gives children freedoms to toy around with sex. If you throw your hands up with the "they're gonna do it anyway" argument ... it defeats the purpose. As far as punishment goes ... well, it's a law. You don't break laws, period. I want the punishment to be reasonable, don't assign draconian punishments on kids who are constantly confused about their state of puberty/sexuality. I'll try to avoid using "dude/my friends/man" in my posts, I write how I talk sometimes ...

07-06-2009, 03:02 PM	#60 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	I guess the 'dude/myfriends/etc.' thing is very subjective, cuz the other ones you listed don't bother me at all. I guess it's just cuz McCain iconized the 'my friends' phrase and left a terribly bad taste in my mouth because of it. On topic! I think some people will inherently do what is right...by -why is having sex before the age of majority wrong-. I think that's an incredibly subjective topic. On the one hand you have the religious folk who think it's wrong to do before marriage. I don't think their opinions are relevant to the law of when it is -legal- to have sex. I don't think sex is inherently wrong, period. I think it's a natural, amazing human function. And I don't want to bar that from people based on age simply because some people think it's morally wrong. The issue, I think, that you are focused on is the downsides of sex. It's a huge emotional investment, and can result in pregnancy/disease. Plus, there are sexual predators. These are valid points. However, again, I don't think it's my place to forbid people from having sex because I wasn't emotionally ready for it at a certain age...they may very well be. That leaves the risk of pregnancy/disease and predators as I think the only reasons for an age of consent. I would be far more supportive of additional education along the pregnancy/disease front. Tbh, my education trained me well for it. I was realistically prepared ever since high school, and the basics in middle school. Perhaps moving those up a couple years to provide the tools for minors to understand sex better would be a wise choice. Then, there is the issue of predators. As I said, that's tricky ground. While I don't support a 'anyone under age X cannot have sex' hard and fast rule, we must look to -protect- the minors from predatory adults. That's why I'm supportive of the laws in my state, which while more complex, more adequately address the issue of predators. Really, the age of consent in NJ is 12, but there are additional restrictions up til age 16 (and then a single one til 18). I think that's an ideal system, and very maturely dealt with. I will never use the 'they'll do it anyway' argument...because I don't think there's anything wrong with them doing it. I'm not opposed to teenagers having sex. I'm adamantly for protection from predators and additional education, though. I repeat myself ><. Sorry, just trying to make sure I addressed all of your points. As far as breaking laws, I think we can all agree that we have great laws, but we also have unjust laws, stupid laws, unnecessary laws, and possibly even laws that violate the human rights of some of our citizens. Just creating a law to enforce an outdated mode of viewpoint (the religious right enforcing their SEX IS BAD message) is counterproductive and possibly even unconstitutional. Hence why I don't think there should be -any- punishment on the kids. The realities of pregnancy and disease enforced through vigorous education and cautioning parents with their well-meaning values should be enough deterrents, in my opinion.

07-11-2009, 09:45 AM	#62 (permalink)
DaniGirl Addict Location: Fucking Utah...	I thought about this a little more and I change my view. 18 for everything. If we are old enough to vote, drive, live on our own then we should be old enough to drink and have sex. The age of consent should be when you are an adult. Im not saying that you shouldn't have sex until you are 18, Im just saying that you shouldn't be able to fuck a 20 year old or older until you are 18. Its not that long to wait.

07-11-2009, 10:31 AM	#63 (permalink)
Strange Famous follower of the child's crusade?	In the UK you can work and pay tax at 16, cant vote until 18... I see that as a mjor flaw. If you are coerced to fund the state you should have the right to vote for the part of it that is accountable. In the UK the age of consent is quite confused between 16 and 18 You can work at 13 part time (like as a paper boy), but you can work fulltime at 16 (although I think they are trying to force people to stay in education till 18 soon) You can screw and smoke at 16, join the army at 17, drive a moped at 16, a car at 17, vote at 18, drink booze at 18, in a pub (but 16 in a restaurant with a meal) marry at 16 (or 18 without parental consent), work at 16, you legally are an adult at 18... until very recently the gay sex age of consent was different to the straight sex age of consent but that changed 10 years or so. I think it makes sense to set one "age of consent" which I would place at 16. I find it incredible that you can join the army at 17 (although you arent supposed to fight till 18) but you cant rent an action movie legally. That you can be married at 16, but not rent a movie with nudity in legally. That you can pay tax but not vote. At 16 a lot of people arent grown up, but Im not grown up at 31... __________________ "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered." The Gospel of Thomas

07-11-2009, 11:22 AM	#64 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	Ideally (not saying it could work at the moment) there should be no age related laws at all. Just tests for said activities. The rest have to do with responsible parenting. Laws can't change that. Laws are not a substitute for wisdom and guidance. Want to take part in politics? prove that you know something about it. Nothing too difficult, just be able to name a few presidents, name a few important laws, that kind of thing. Pick some multiple choice answers about how the government works. If you can understand what's going on there's no reason you shouldn't be able to vote. Want to drink? Up to your parents. They already control the rest of your safety, why is drinking so special? Want to drive? Prove it (IMO the test should be harder though). Sex? Up to you and those that take care of you. No, that doesn't mean 40 year olds will marry 12 year olds. There are still (not sure what their name is) laws that take into account state of mind. If a 40 year old sleeps with a 12 year old the kid was almost certainly taken advantage of and the 40 year old can still be gotten for a new appropriately modified version of statutory rape or those state of mind rape laws. But 12 year olds that want to sleep with other kids? Why not? It'll be the same as it is now. My friends and I started having sex in 8th grade. The responsibility is still on the parents. The law or lack of wouldn't change that. Military and such would be state of mind and physical related. They already have those tests in place. Just need to add a bit to the state of mind part and make sure they're making their own decision. Everyone matures at different paces, physically and mentally. Arbitrary age laws are worse than none at all because it gives people the illusion that they don't have to take responsibility for their kids. That the government and FCC will do it for them. And they are arbitrary. Plenty of other working countries have much much lower age laws or none at all and they work fine on that fact. Last edited by Zeraph; 07-11-2009 at 11:25 AM..

07-11-2009, 03:27 PM	#65 (permalink)
Jozrael Junkie	ThAt sounds fantastic to me, but writing sufficiently objective tests would be difficult, to say the least. There would be ways to skew the tests towards your party and I'm sure they'd create even more fights in our political infrastructure that wouldn't necessarily end in the best laws being passed.