Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,814 Year: 3,071/9,624 Month: 916/1,588 Week: 99/223 Day: 10/17 Hour: 6/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should this guy have served time?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 112 (280222)
01-20-2006 9:17 AM


Can someone remind me why it's supposed to be wrong for an male over the age of majority to have sex with a teenage male?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 112 (280287)
01-20-2006 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by randman
01-20-2006 10:21 AM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
This is interesting because it asserts the fundamental right of the family over the state, something I am for in general. However, if a parent were allowing their small children to have sex with a friend they have over for dinner, it still strikes me as, well, perverse and probably detrimental to the child.
This is interesting. You appear to be saying that families should have control over what goes on within the family, except when you disagree with it.
Suppose, for the sake of argument, it were conclusively shown that having sex with adults is good for children, would you be for it despite the wishes of the parents?
I'm just trying to figure out when you feel that families should have autonomy, and when the state should intervene despite the family's wishes.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 10:21 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 1:37 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 112 (280305)
01-20-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Wounded King
01-20-2006 12:49 PM


Re: she is pro-gay
quote:
I see, so judges aren't allowed to have personal opinions....
I wonder how many conservative judges who are members of the activist Federalist Society would need to recuse themselves from various cases involving , say, property rights.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Wounded King, posted 01-20-2006 12:49 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by jar, posted 01-20-2006 1:29 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 112 (280320)
01-20-2006 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
01-20-2006 1:37 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
Can you clarify your stance, please? Are you saying parents should be allowed to invite people over to have sex with their small children, or not?
I am asking that very question. Should parents be allowed to allow their children to have sex with adults? Should parents be allowed to allow adults to have sex with their children? Are there situations where such a thing definitely be against the best interests of the child? If so, is that enough to justify state intervention?
I think that the other question I asked is very relevant as to whether ones opinions on this matter is based on one's beliefs as to right and wrong or based on practical benefits verses harm to the child.
Imagine that we lived in a society that accepted sex with children (such have existed, by the way, so this is not a stretch), and suppose that the best available research concluded that sex with adults was actually beneficial to children. Would you then agree that the state should encourage sex between children and adults, or is it your moral beliefs that are determining your stance here?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 1:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 2:07 PM Chiroptera has replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 112 (280324)
01-20-2006 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
01-20-2006 1:37 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
Sorry; I had to finish that last post quickly since someone came into my office on business.
quote:
For me, I probably err more on the side of protecting familial and parental rights than the safety and well-being of the child.
I, too, would err on the side of protecting familial rights over overprotection by the state. In fact, I would agree with someone who just said (was it holmes) that families should be allowed to withhold medical treatment on religious grounds. And which would be worse, allowing a child to die from a perhaps treatable illness or allowing a child to engage in sexual activity?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 1:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 5:05 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 112 (280350)
01-20-2006 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
01-20-2006 2:07 PM


Re: u can start with answering basic questions
quote:
Imagine that we lived in a society that accepted sex with children (such have existed, by the way, so this is not a stretch), and suppose that the best available research concluded that sex with adults was actually beneficial to children. Would you then agree that the state should encourage sex between children and adults, or is it your moral beliefs that are determining your stance here?
I do not think the state should "encourage" pedophilia, even in that situation....
The situation that I made up was one where a reasonable person could conclude that sexual activity was beneficial for minors; you are then saying that your views on this subject are not entirely based on benefits vs. harm to the child. Or perhaps due to a religious belief, that sex outside of marriage is a "sin" and therefore automatically constitutes "harm" regardless of what any investigation into this matter would show. There is nothing inherently wrong with such an view, and I am not automatically dismissing it if it is how you feel.
Then you state:
quote:
...but if the society predominantly accepted pedophilia as normal, then I do not think the state should outlaw it....
Is this a general principle that you hold? That the state should not act against the beliefs and practices accepted by the (majority of) the people? Yet, you unquestionably have a sense of right and wrong; would I be correct if I were to say that you believe that the proper way to enact social change is to persuade the people at large that the policies in which you believe are beneficial? That state power should not be used against the wishes of the majority, even if it is for a "good cause"?

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 2:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 01-20-2006 5:02 PM Chiroptera has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 94 of 112 (280542)
01-21-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
01-21-2006 9:56 AM


Re: Does it deserve jail?
"We think he should have gone to jail for abusing his authority as a teacher,” said Plymouth County District Attorney Timothy J. Cruz.
Yes, I notice this aspect of this case, too, but I didn't bring it up since randman's main interest seemed to be the homosexuality and/or the age of the participants.
I would agree that sanctions against a teacher for engaging in sexual relations with a student may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances. I would disagree that the sanctions should include jail time; depending on circumstances, loss of employment and perhaps permanent black-listing would be sufficient.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 01-21-2006 9:56 AM Modulous has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024