Denying equality: an analysis of arguments against lowering the age of consent for sex between men

Abstract

This paper takes a human rights approach to lesbian and gay oppression and critically explores the arguments used to oppose equality in debates about the age of consent for sex between men. A thematic analysis of Hansard and newspaper reports produced in Britain during the 1990s showed that opponents of a proposal to equalize the age of consent countered with three key arguments: (1) principles of right and wrong take precedence over equality; (2) principles of democracy take precedence over equality; (3) principles of care and protection take precedence over equality. Two additional arguments (concerning the health risks of anal intercourse and escalating demands for gay rights) are also outlined. Our findings are discussed with reference to debates on other lesbian and gay rights issues and we consider the ways in which these arguments might best be resisted. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Moral Reasoning and Homosexuality: The acceptability of arguments about lesbian and gay issues

“…Given the preference for other arguments, this may suggest that the human rights argument is 'lost' among the (currently) more dominant voices of moral rhetoric (cf. Ellis & Kitzinger, 2002).…”

A comparison of the gender-specificity of age of consent legislation in Europe and China: Towards a gender-neutral age of consent in China?

“…Put into the historical context, the development towards gender-neutral age of consent legislation in Europe was the result of (inter alia) a successful lobby by women and gay's rights movements who strived to end the long-lasting discrimination against homosexuality and women and aimed to achieve the goal of Bequality for all^ (Ellis andKitzinger 2002, Williams 2008). China does not have a similar historical background.…”

“Seismic Cultural Change?”: British media representations of same-sex ‘marriage’

“…Please cite published version. 4 change regarding LGBT issues (see for example; Ellis and Kitzinger, 2002;Rahman, 2004). Furthermore, the much heralded liberalism which permeates the media has been criticized for failing to recognise lesbians and gay men's subordinated position in society, creating a false perception of equality which allows demands for further equality to be rendered as 'special rights' or preferential treatment (Brickell, 2001;Rahman, 2004).…”

“…This article aims to contribute to the social scientific literature employing social constructionist approaches to media coverage of lesbian and gay equality issues (e.g., Meyer, 1994;Ellis and Kitzinger, 2002) and to literature examining how lesbians and gay men are constructed as the same as or different to heterosexuals (Clarke, 2002;Riggs, 2005). Here we look specifically at how the British newspaper press constructed civil partnership and same-sex relationships around the time that the Civil Partnership Act came into effect in 2005 and the ideological and political implications of constructing civil partnership (and marriage) in these ways.…”