Are sexual prohibitions mixing religion and the law?

Hi randman,I'm not aware of any scientific finding that tell me whether we should deride a man for cheating on his wife. That's right. There is no scientific reason, and frankly if everybody involved is willing and capable of making a judgement for themselves, there's no moral or ethical reason either. Hmmmn. That's a strange list.Fornication is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a man (in restricted use, an unmarried man) and an unmarried woman". Well, you already said there's no reason to think there's anything wrong with that. Certainly no scientific reason, and I would argue no moral or ethical reason either.Adultery is, according to the OED, "the voluntary sexual intercourse of a married person with one of the opposite sex, whether unmarried, or married to another". Same thing applies, to the extent that the wedding vows are considered important by the "cheated" partner. I can certainly imagine a situation (i.e. wife-swapping, orgies, or what have you) where adultery would have no reason to be considered a problem according to your views.Homosexuality is, according to the OED, "a sexual propensity for one's own sex; of or involving sexual activity with a member of one's own sex, or between individuals of the same sex." Same thing applies. There is no scientific, ethical or moral reason why it should be considered a bad thing.Pedophilia???? It's pretty strange to include that along with homosexuality and the rest. Pedophilia is in my understanding sexual intercourse with somebody too young to give their consent. The age at which somebody can give consent is decided by law. There is no reason to think that homosexuality, adultery or fornication involves a lack of consent of one party. All of those proclivities involve consenting adults, whereas pedophilia is strictly the same as rape (because no consent was or can be given, by law). Well, we aren't imposing our religion on them. We're imposing a consensus view of when people are old enough to give consent. We're also imposing a view of the teacher-child relationship that was developed for centuries. There are certainly people who disagree with the idea that teachers can't sleep with their students. But I guess teachers have to work within the consensus view. Same thing applies. Did the 15 year old give consent? What has science got to do with this? The age of consent, and the legal idea of consent, is not scientific, it's a social norm, a consensus view.Mickin edit: the only question worth talking about is: a) when is consent given? and b) when are people capable of giving consent? These questions are easily resolved in certain extreme situations. If you are a doctor and you have sex with a patient who is in a coma, then you've done a pretty serious crime. If you are a teacher and you have sex with a student who is ten years old, then you've done a pretty serious crime. The moral dilemma comes in the intermediate stages, what philosophers call the problem of vagueness.As far as pedophilia is concerned, there are plenty of fifteen year-olds who are willing to give consent to sex, but there are plenty of fifteen year-olds who can be taken advantage of. The law, however, has to draw a single line for everybody. Some people fall on one side of the law, and some on the other side. In Spain, the age of consent is 13. In Saudi Arabia it is any age as long as you are married. In Tunisia it is 20.I'm betting that there are Tunisians who have sex between the ages of 13 and 20 - and that's the problem of vagueness.This message has been edited by mick, 11-19-2005 07:03 PMThis message has been edited by mick, 11-19-2005 07:19 PM

Hi, But that is why a fourteen year old boy who has sex with a fourteen year old girl is not put in prison, while a 50-year old man who has sex with a 14-year old boy is considered the worst of society.God, that sounds terrible. I hereby state that I'm not a 50 year-old man and I've never had sex with a 14-year old boy.Mick

Yes, I see where you're coming from. (I actually agree with you).In the UK, one can join the army and murder people for a living, shoot sand-niggers in the head for a living, at the age of 16, and indeed it's encouraged through organizations such as the Army Cadets, who recruit young boys from the age of 13 and 14. But you can't see an erect penis on TV no matter how old you are.Bullshit if you ask me.