Don't turn my God-fearing kid gay!

quote:

---

Seeming social acceptance forces the child to believe it is truth.

---

That what is "truth"?That gay people are normal?

quote:

---

Portraying homosexuality as the norm is an illusion that a child may have to be faced with if dealing with 2 gay parents.

---

What is "the norm"?In may communities, it's "the norm" to not know who your father is at all, or to have your father be in prison, or dead, or both your parents in prison, or drug addicts hustling on the corner, and you get raised by your grandmother.In certain parts of California, and NYC, it is quite normal to see many gay couples and families around, as well as single moms, single dads, and many blended families.Maybe it's your notion of what is "normal" is far too restrictive and not actually reflective of the reality of the present of the past.

[quote]At least, they are still in touch with the truth,[wuote]and what truth is that?That families come in all sorts of configurations?

quote:

---

and severity of situations on this planet. Rather than being pressed on an illusory image of society.

---

What "illusory image of society".What are you talking about?

quote:

---

This non-evidence surprises me.

---

Uh, I actually live in a city that is very friendly to gay folks, so I do see lots of gay coulples, many with children, walking around and conducting their lives just like everybody else.Remember, this is the comment you made:

quote:

---

Portraying homosexuality as the norm is an illusion that a child may have to be faced with if dealing with 2 gay parents.

---

And I pointed out to you that the definition of "the norm" has always been entirely relative to one's own experience. there is no objective standard for "normal" when it comes to human society. It has always been in flux.You know, you and your brother would both do well to work on your writing skills. I am getting tired of having to ask you to be clearer, to explain yourself in a way that is understandable.

quote:

---

If a straight couple were into kinky whips and chains and porno
and I knew about it, I would say that they were not yet ready to adopt kids! Our right to do whatever we want does not protect us from our responsibility to be good role models.

---

And what if that straight couple listened to heavy metal music? Or both had shaved heads? Or they had a lot of piercings?What do any of these things have to do with loving a child and raising them with good values?OTOH, I would consider it a bit of a red flag if the straight couple slept in separate beds, went to church 3 days a week, and believed that Armageddon was nigh.

quote:

---

2) If my 17 year old daughter told me that she liked girls and was dating one, I would not condemn them to hell or yell at her. I would probably want to meet her friend. I would not declare that everything was normal and ok, however.

---

Like she'd ever tell you in the first place.

quote:

---

It's not about if a group of people should be accepted, it's about what groups are accepted.

---

In my community, gay couples with children are accepted.Is that bad?

quote:

---

ok 3-4,.. 96-97... Normal, sure. : - /

---

3% of the total population of the world is 180,000,000 people.That's one hundred eighty million gay people in the world.Who are you to tell each one of them that they aren't normal?

quote:

---

Society deems it as not normal.

---

Maybe in your sad society it's deemed as such, but not in my town.

quote:

---

This could be distorted in having 2 gay parents.

---

You do realize that this is the same argument used to justify bigotry against interracial and interfaith marriages, don't you?

quote:

---

My parents slept in seperate beds!

---

So did mine.They also abused all of their kids.

quote:

---

It is also the same argument used against polyamorous/polygamous couples,

---

As long as the people are all adults and are not coerced, I think it's fine.

quote:

---

incestuous (adult) couples,

---

As a general rule, incest is to be avoided because we know that it leads to inbred, defective offspring.

quote:

---

and couples where one or more of the participants are below and arbitrary age (though obviously of child bearing age in this case).

---

Gee, are you only talking about the female being younger in such a situation, since you specifically mention child bearing?Being physically able to bear a child does not mean an individual is emotionally or mentally mature enough to handle the stong feelings brought about by a sexual relationship, especially when the other party is much older. It also does not mean that an individual is capable of raising a child, should one be produced.The average age for a first period for girls is 11 but it is not unusual for many to begin menstruating at as young as 8 years old.Boys reach puberty between the ages of 11 and 15.Added by edit: Although it is historically normal for children, especially girls, and sometimes boys, to get married very young, the age at which girls get their period, and thus are able to bear children NOW, is very different from even the fairly recent past.The average age of first menstruation in the West is far, far younger than it was even a few generations ago; it went down from 17 to around 11 years in the last 150 years.I don't think that there is any doubt that a 17 year old is much more ready, even in our culture, to take on adult responsibilities and to live indepenently compared to a 11 or 12 year old.When humans were pre-industrial and living in hunter/gatherer clans, and the lifespan was much shorter, it made sense to start breeding young, because there was not a great deal of abstract information that needed to be imparted in order to be successful as a hunter/gatherer. People only lived into their 30's in those days, too, and the mortality rate for children was high, so the sooner one started to have children, the more likely it would be that some would survive.In today's relatively technologically advanced society, we do not generally consider an 8, or even an 11 year old child capable of raising a child, earning a living, etc., because they don't have anywhere near the education or social skills or maturity required in our culture to be successful as an independent entity.I mean, let's say we decided it was OK for a 45 year old man to marry and have children with an 11 year old girl, because she has begun having her period and can bear children. Well, let's say she gets pregnant right away and bears the child, but he has a heart attack and dies. Is this 11 or 12 year old child able to work and raise this infant all on her own? Perhaps she might have been able to do so in the hunter/gatherer clan social system, but not in today's culture.We also now know that there are certain risks to the health of girls who get pregnant at a very young age (before 15), and also to the infants they bear.Of course, the sexual attraction of old males to young females stems from the male's evolutionary drive to create as many offspring as possible, with as many females as possible, and youth in a female implies fertility, and is thus viewed as attractive.However, while this drive may have worked and been neccessary for the continuation of the species in the hunder/gatherer culture, it doesn't work as well now, in our culture. We have also decided, rightly so, that sexual coersion, particularly of unsophisticated, immature youngsters is wrong.So, I think that having "arbitrary" minimum consent ages is sensible and reflects the reality of what it takes to function as an independent adult in our culture. Does it mean that some people who really are mature enough to have sex will have to wait to be within the law? Yes. But it will protect the majority who are not mature enough. It's just like minimum age requirements for getting a driver's license. Sure, there are some 13 year olds tall enough to reach the pedals and have the cognitive ability to drive, but most are not. So, the gifted 13 year old drivers will have to wait.

quote:

---

Indeed I have just recently seen the same argument made against women who work as prostitutes.

---

What about children who work as prostitutes? Or males, or transgendered people?Anyway, I'd much rather work for a world in which people have sex with other people because they want to not because they have to to survive.

quote:

---

My question to you is only this: do you maintain a consistent position and defend all of the above, or just homosexuality/interracial/interfaith relationships?

​

I'm not attempting to pick a fight, but to figure out where you stand.

---

I do not hold a consistent position for all of these issues because they are not identical issues.There are shades of gray and complications that make consistency impossible when I really think about the implications.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-02-2005 11:58 AM

quote:

---

That has been disproven. It is only many generations of inbreeding that can lead to such problems. Actually incest is part of breeding for superior genes within animal husbandry, don't they do that for horses as well?

---

Well yes, but it is very dangerous. From a very good site dealing with a particular breed, the Peruvian Paso, which is a good breed to examine because it is bred to naturally perform several unusual gaits rather than being taught them, so how it is bred is very important:

quote:

---

Remember the recent teacher-student case? She had sex with a very young boy was impregnated twice by him.

​

Their relationship was rejected by society and we used our courts to tear them apart. After all of that, the boy (now a man) appealed to the courts to remove the restraining order against the woman, and now they are getting (or have gotten) married.

​

Why was any of this necessary?

---

This was necessary because we cannot base our laws upon each and every individual case, but upon general rules of thumb.She was his teacher, and an authority figure who persued him sexually, which I find rather predatory and coercive. Maybe they have a healthy relationship, maybe they don't. The point is, that boy might have been one of those people who was ready to drive at the age of 13, but the law says you have to wait until you are 16, because that's the age at which most people can handle the responsibility.Tell me, do you think there should be a arbitrary, but reasonable restriction upon the age that someone is allowed to get a driver's license?

quote:

---

This is your perception.

---

This is not a matter of perception.Are you saying that, according to your perception, the instant that any given girl who has her first period at age 8 in fact IS emotionally and mentally mature enough to handle a sexual relationship?All I am saying with my above statement that the mere presence of a first period in a girl, or deepening voice in a boy, or whatever secondary sexual characteristics you'd like to list, does not mean that that individual is suddenly ready to have a sexual relationship with anyone. I would say the same about some college students I have known.

quote:

---

They have, including in the past. But even if I were to accept the first part of this statement, I am unaware what the age of the other party would have to do with whether the first party can handle giving birth.

---

It's not the giving birth. It's the raising of the child and providing for it alone if need be.

quote:

---

I have seen only a few limited studies which do not show that this is true. Given historical and cultural examples of young women giving birth, it seems a bit odd to say this actually happened. But I am open to any data that you have. To head off stuff I have already seen, please give me something that does not hinge on birthrates in Scandinavia.

---

Well, I can give you anecdotal evidence in that I had my first period at 13, when my mother and her mother both had their first period at 17.I can also give you this very good page from the Museum of Menstruation and Women's HealthIt does show that it may be that the past average age of first menarche might be younger than 17 and be more like 15. Still a drop in age is generally observed.

quote:

---

Imagine a society which cared for those that were young and had kids, or any age for that matter, and yet unable to provide sufficiently for a child. This is true in some places, especially societies with extended families. Now what would be the problem?

---

That wouldn't be a problem at all.Let's change the law when this society is in place and not before.As it is now, we can "imagine" all of the utopian versions of society we want but we do not currently live in that society. This society frankly does a really terrible job of raising most of its kids and does a worse job of educating people about healthy sexual habits so I am not very interested in adding to the problem of even more children having children than we already do. We aren't set up to handle even the most basic practicalities of such a society.

quote:

---

In today's culture gays cannot provide for their partners as well as heteros can as they are restricted by societal institutions, the same type of ones you just described.

---

See, I wasn't talking about two adults providing for each other, or even an adult providing for a child. I was talking about an 11 year old child being unprepared to provide for her children because she is undereducated and simply hasn't had the time or opportunity to become educated.

quote:

---

Thus it would seem you should agree there is a difference TODAY, as compared to PAST CULTURES, such that we should limit homosexual relationships.

---

No.We are talking about adults in every sense of the word, not just "having gotten one's period".Are you going to start telling me that a given 11 year old generally has the same social and emotiotional skills as someone who is 45?

quote:

---

Again arguing from an ethnocentric view point to support that ethnocentric viewpoint. It is hard for gays now, thus gays society should not change to make it easier for them?

---

Uh, the last time I checked, consenting adults are the sorts of people we've been talking about, not children who are easier to manipulate than adults.

quote:

---

Are we to change to what is possible for the greatest freedom to all minorities, or for the preservation of current "problems"?

---

Again, I thought we were talking about adults in consentual realtionships?

quote:

---

There can be coercion in any relationship,

---

Yes, but I didn't think I had to explain to you that children who by definition lack experience, education, and social skills, because all of these things take time to learn, are generally easier to coerce and manipulate than an adult.

quote:

---

there is no evidence for greater harm intrinsically coming from a cross-age relationship...

---

How do you know that this is true?Do you agree that a given 11 year old girl, taken as a wife by a 45 year old man, is not likely to be prepared to function as a successful adult in our society because she is still a child, uneducated, lacking in social skills, and more easily controlled and manipulated than an 18 year old woman?Remember, the laws are there to protect the majority, even though there may be exceptions to every rule. There might be an 11 year old who does have a high school diploma and all the adult social skills needed to be a independent adult, but most of them don't, so that's why we set a age of consent law.

quote:

---

Indeed, the Greeks have already been given as an example of homosexuality in this thread and their's was a pedophilic example. Is your argument that they were usually coerced and harmed from that coercion? Are we right now about that, and they were wrong then?

---

I don't know if they were or weren't. Do you?

quote:

---

If you feel coercion is not inherent, then are you accepting of no age of consent restrictions on homosexual relationships since they will not bear children?

---

Coersion is not inherent in any relationship, but made more likely as the age of one of the parties goes lower into childhood. infoRemember, people persue sex for all sorts of reasons, not always just for pleasure and sometimes for purely selfish reasons. Basically, people who don't care about others lie to get what they want, and generally, a child is not likely to be experienced or skilled enough to see it happening, more so as the age of the child is lower. The urge to sexually control someone else is common among many people, and controlling children is easier than controlling adults.That's why we have to set an arbitrary age of consent; because while there may be some children who have these skills, most do not.

quote:

---

This is both ethnocentric and self-fulfilling. In the Netherlands (as an example) the AOC is 12 and they can have kids at that age, and in the US it can be as low as 13.

---

I think that 13 is too low. I would pick 16, because that's the age when it is legal for a person to voluntarily drop out of school, and they can drive, and they have been in school and society long enough to have some measure of resistance to adult pressure and control.

quote:

---

Thus the "arbitrary" aoc you are talking about dips down to the very examples you say need protection.

---

We still protect 8-12 year olds.

quote:

---

So what then is the reason for AOCs? What do they provide?

---

They provide protection to the youngest children from the known danger of adults who will use and control them for sexual gratification without regard for the child.Please note that I am not talking about protecting kids from having sexual relationships with other kids the same age or close. An 18 year old who has sex with his 16 year old girl friend of a year is probably not coercing her, but a 45 year old man who has sex with an 11 year old probably is....and I do support some sanity and flexability WRT these laws.

quote:

---

What happens if they want to have sex in order to earn money? What happens if they honestly see nothing wrong with it and since they like having sex, and it brings in good money, they would prefer that kind of job?

---

Well, I guess they're going to do it, but like I said, I'd much rather live in a world where people have sex with each other because they want to not because they get paid to do so.Money is a big source of coersion. That's why you don't see a lot of independently rich people becoming professional prostitutes, even though I'll bet they have a lot of sex if they want to.

quote:

---

I just realized that this would touch on people who work in porn as well, and in another thread (which you have left hanging) you were arguing that "society" should take precedence over sexual minorities in that case. Remember? Women should not work in porn until the entire society has decided that it is okay and will let them do so?

---

That isn't exactly what I said. I actually wanted you to show me some evidence that you knew that these women (in Afghanistan?) were not being coerced, provided with drugs, or otherwise compelled to perform in porn, because your main evidence that the women wanted to do it was that they appeared in videos.

quote:

---

But actually they are the same when you get down to the root of the situations I have asked about.

---

No, I don't see that a high school and college graduate who has worked in his or her industry for several decades, owns a house, travels, and happens to be a homosexual who wants to adopt a child with his partner of 15 years actually has much to do with a 11 year old girl, in the 5th grade, living with her parents, making macaroni pictures at summer camp, and attending Brownie meetings being taken as a lover or wife by a 45 year old man and getting pregnant by him have very much in common.Now, you can argue about what you think the age of consent should be, but to argue that there shouldn't be any is, in my mind, irresponsible and reckless.

quote:

---

What you are doing when you "think about the implications" is bring into the argument ethnocentric issues. They are not universal and need not be the case.

---

Do you think that it should be legal for all 8-12 year olds to be be able to drive cars? What about buy liquor? Get married? Drop out of school and get a job? Decide to submit to scientific experiments? Vote? Gamble their savings at Atlantic City? Operate a wrecking ball? Own a gun?Why or why not?

quote:

---

Essentially someone against homosexuality could do the same thing. They could say they think its okay except for when they consider the "implications" and then list off the worries they have or conditions they have set up within modern culture.

---

But it's adults we're talking about. Their "worries" are irrelevant if they are not based upon the reality that homosexual adults behave pretty much like heterosexual adults in almost every way.

quote:

---

Please do not take any of the above as if I have said it with a mean or sarcastic intent. I realize you were giving me straight answers from your position. Indeed I think you presented them very well. I am simply trying to show you that in the end you are complicating the questions, or obfuscating them, by introducing a measure of circularity.

---

I really don't think I've been circular. I do think that you have argued from a "what if" viewpoint rather than a "what is".Oh, and thanks for saying that you think I presented my argument well.

quote:

---

No, come on, it's got to be more like 1-2% realistically.

---

Uh, why?

quote:

---

Out of every 100 people you meet, chances are that 1-2 are gay,
not 10-20. That's just too high.

---

Er, why?

quote:

---

it's hard to tell how many gays there are out there, but it's highly unlikely that it's more than a couple percent of the population.

---

Mmm, why?

quote:

---

And I guess it depends on where you live and who admits that they are gay.

---

Gee, ya think?

quote:

---

Let me start be reiterating that you have been by far the best opponent I have had on this topic (well these topics really). You are sticking to practical issues as much as possible.

---

That's the plan. Thanks.

quote:

---

However, as I stated before, and I will continue to try and make clear, much of it is based in an ethnocentric position that anti-gay advocates can utilize.

---

See, I don't think so.What you call "ethnocentric" I call, at least in some cases, "what we do now because we know better than we did in the past."

quote:

---

You are not wholly incorrect that much of my argument has focused on the "what if" because that is the exact argument being used to support gay rights as well as was used for interracial rights.

---

Yes, except that with AOC laws, we are not talking about adults.

quote:

---

You use the "what if", or comparison to other "what is" and past "what has been" cultures to get at the base practical issues of sexuality. From there you can see what are real issues, and what are culturally manufactured issues.

---

Well, I think you are actually pretty biased when you go to determine what the "real issues" of sexuality are. I probably am too, but I perceive your position to be fairly extreme and not observant of the way adults can control children, and the way people use other people for their own gratification.You come at the issues from a perspective, it seems, that all sex between any people is likely to be good for all concerned. I don't think that's true, and that's my bias.

quote:

---

The very first statement... "A universal effect of linebreeding or tight continued linebreeding is a loss of vigor" is exactly what I meant by... "It is only many generations of inbreeding that can lead to such problems".

---

Well, that's why we have laws aginst it. Because people have done it for generations and it has led to (insert banjo music here)inbreeding problems. What's to stop people from doing such breeding in many generations if there's no law aginst it? They've done it in certain lineages in the past.OTOH, I am actually sort of torn about this particular issue. Since there is a rather strong universal, seemingly inherent avoidance of certain kinds of "close relation that were raised together, or parental" incest, (even among chimanzees observed by Goodall), it must be quite rare. If people are consenting adults and fully informed, then who am I to stop them. However, what are we going to do about the "fully informed" part? License someone to have sex with their sibling?

quote:

---

The following paragraph of being careful to discover which crosses are possible does not in any way diminish my point. Even their ranking of which are more dangerous does not show actual threats or how they relate to issues one might find between any two unrelated people out in society.

---

Actually, the essay does say this: So, we see a benefit to "hybridizing" in just one generation. I realize that this is related to the relatively small gene pool of a single breed of horse.

quote:

---

For example there are wholly unrelated couples whose attempts to have children will result in abortions (natural) and deformities of some kind, greater than the risk presented by sibling parentage.

---

But as a general rule, sibling to sibling breedings are more likely to produce these problems than a "outcross" breeding which results in a vigorous "hybrid".

quote:

---

Yet the former is given the chance to try and procreate as much as they want.

---

We are talking about odds here, not individual cases.

quote:

---

And again there are the handicapped.

---

Hmm, that's a good point. We don't legislate against people with genetic dorders reproducing, why should we legislate against incest, which is known to produce genetic problems?I will have to think about that.

quote:

---

Actually you can create laws which define specifics, and you can avoid having laws at all when they are not necessary. If our problem is coercion then we can make that illegal, not rules of thumb.

---

But who gets to define "coersion", and who gets to decide, on a case by case basis, if the 11 year old really was capable of making an informed choice to have sex with the 45 year old man, or if she was coerced?I sure don't want the Utah polygamists deciding if that 11 year old was coerced.

quote:

---

When AIDs started its way through this nation it was without question within the homosexual community. There are also higher rates of spread of STDs within the homosexual community. Thus, according to your logic, societies can prosecute homosexuality due to its being a health hazard... as a rule of thumb.

---

A virus that one contracts is not the same as "the way people treat other people."

quote:

---

Yes, but there is little connection between that and the use of one's sexuality.

---

Sure there is.There are certain risks involved to one's person and one's health, and also one's psyche that one takes on when one decides to engage in sexual activity. Are 11 year olds generally able to have a conversation with a 40 year old man and ask him about his sexual history and if they can, are they able to tell if he's likely to be lying or not? Can they look at and understand a blood test result from a lab? Do they really understand how pregnancy occurs, and are they responsible and "adult" enough to make sure to use protection, every single time, no matter if the man refuses to wear a condom? Do they have the ability to be an equal and active sexual partner to this 45 year old man?Similarly, the use of one's body and mind to safely and responsibly operate a vehicle on the public roads also requires similar levels of maturity and judgement and ability to handle scary situations without panicking that most 11 year olds do not yet posess.

quote:

---

That said, I think the arbitrary nature does not have to be so arbitrary as we can generally figure out where people are capable of consistent eye-hand-foot coordination to operate a vehicle as well as understand signs and estimate the travel of other vehicles.

---

Yeah. We can "generally figure out where people are capable" of certain things, like driving.And we set a somewhat arbitrary age, like 16, for when most people have displayed the qualities needed to drive fairly safely.

quote:

---

What criteria are you basing protection against one's own sexual choices, besides cultural expectations of harm?

---

I would pick an age at which people generally have enough independence to be able to say no to an authority figure, are able to tell if someone is trying to manipulate them, and are capable of fully understanding the consequences of their actions.

quote:

---

Sexual relationship, or bear a child? There is a vast difference between the two.

---

Of course, But one often leads to the other, so they are very closely related.

quote:

---

But yes in general I would say that at any age a child is ready for a sexual relationship, they generally do that all by themselves.

---

"Is" ready, or "can be" ready?

quote:

---

The question is more about what kind of sex and with who, and as the only real practical matter concerning others: what do the parents want for their child.

---

On this we agree.

quote:

---

If you mean guidance for the child or will they be emotionally capable of handling every situation that having a child presents, my guess would be no. But on the other hand I have not known any person of any age that was prepared for what a birth represents, except for those who have already gone through it once already. Generally in a first birth, guidance is needed by those with experience.

---

There is a big, big difference between an adult not knowing exactly what to expect and being overwhelmed by the arrival of a first child, but having the emotional strength, maturity, and self-discipline to do what is needed for themselves and the child, and a child of 8 or 10 giving birth, being overwhelmed, and NOT having those internal resources of experience and maturity to draw upon.The girl just hasn't been on the planet long enough to develop her mental and emotional capacity to the extent that is needed. She is still a child herself.

quote:

---

That is simply your perception. Kids begin playing with themselves just about right after birth. They begin playing with others not long after that. In ages past (and some cultures still today) sexual play was not considered bad and so done without the burden which you appear to be placing on it.

---

OK, I am not talking about kids playing around with their genitals or with other kids' genitals.I am talking about an 11 year old girl becoming a 45 year old man's wife or lover, for example.

quote:

---

Childbirth and raising children is separate from whether a person is ready for sexual play.

---

But they are related activities, clearly.

quote:

---

Well then you have just created the argument against gays, especially gays being able to adopt and have kids. Let us change the laws to allow THAT, and THEM, once a tolerant society is in place and not before.

---

Nope.The loving, capable gay families waiting to adopt children already exist, with no evidence at all that they are harmful to the children in any way.

quote:

---

Certainly it has to be a society willing to give them equal parental rights before kids should be allowed to be given to them as "family".

---

No, there are plenty of children who grow up in blended families who are not ever adopted by their new mom or dad. I do think it's a problem, however, and should be rectified in both straight and gay families.

quote:

---

Maybe they don't need to be pitied and viewed as damaged goods with no chance for a future. Maybe that is what has helped form a culture where they cannot do just as well as others.

---

But how can they do as well as others in school, with a child to raise? It is just much harder to study calculus and become a professional mathematician when you have to make money to feed your 5 year old. No, it's better to drop out of school and get a job to feed and raise the kid. Now, less education is worse than more, I should think, and raising a kid and going to school are pretty hard to do at the same time. Saving for a really good college education is pretty impossible with a kid to raise, too.Oh, and where are all of those grown men who have had sex with these girls and gotten them pregnant?

quote:

---

The draconian sexual mores and laws we have at this time are not necessary, including for the issues you are discussing, even if there are some of the problems you have mentioned.

---

I hardly think that setting a minimum age at which children can give consent to having intercourse is "draconian", any more than age limits on getting a driver's license or submitting to scientific experiments is "draconian".

quote:

---

Older is not necessarily wiser, but I will agree that age has an edge on youth in that category. What's your point? That it takes a lot of wisdom before one ought to be allowed to raise a kid?

---

No.My point is that it takes quite a few years of experience of dealing with and having relationships with people before we become skilled at it. My point is also that children are trained to respect and obey adults at authorities, and it is generally when a child is in his or her later teens that they start to think about this authority and judge it as worthy or not.A child in the 5th grade is simply not at all likely to view a 45 year old man as an equal, a peer, and vice versa. He will likely be able to control her, and she is likely to submit.

quote:

---

I would argue there is a reason to have wisdom before voting, signing contracts, and driving. I see little reason for that in sex.

---

Well, of course, YOU wouldn't.

quote:

---

That is what being young is about, getting wisdom in that regard so they can know what the hell they are talking about later in life.

---

So, what about submitting to scientific experiments? It's their body, right?

quote:

---

If kids are able to be coerced and manipulated into sexual play and identities they do not like, then having kids in homes where the sexual nature of the parents is not what society likes would be a problem.

---

I don't see how this follows.I'm not talking about "protecting" children from exposure to anything sexual at all, just to active manipulation of them to get them to submit to activities they otherwise would not have.

quote:

---

First, the question of whether an 11 year old is ready for marriage and be able to function as an adult is sort of beside the point. The fact that you expect a sexual actor or even a wife to function as an adult is an ethnocentric expectation on your part. Why is either necessary?

---

OK, why not let the 45 year old man marry a toddler?After all, why is being able to speak in complete sentences even necessary as a spouse?

quote:

---

Second, is an 11 year old able to be more easily manipulated than an 18 year old? Yes and no. Potentially an 11 year old is more easily manipulated because the person has had less experience, however cultures can change this. I would argue that nowadays in US society 18 and 11 year olds are about identical.

---

I would not at all.I think you need to back that up.

quote:

---

Indeed I am almost wondering if there is much a difference between 11 year olds and most people of any age. The level of reasonable conversation (use of logic to actually communicate) has been all but lost, and the public at large is easily manipulated.

---

Again, show me that a man can walk up to a selection of 100 45 year old women on the street, tell each one that he has a puppy around the corner, and then try to lead her off by the hand. Now, have him try that with 100 11 year old girls. I'll bet he's more successful with the 11 year olds.

quote:

---

Ignorance and lack of wisdom is a potential problem, age is not a solution.

---

Why don't we give a minimum amount of time to every child to develop as much wisdom as possible, just to give them every chance? Ignorance in children is often caused by a lack of time to gain experience with their peers before being exposed to the full age range of people outh there.

quote:

---

Wow, nice stereotypes (sarcasm).

---

They aren't stereotypes. They are examples.

quote:

---

Seriously, you started by arguing that we must not deal with specifics. Each of these are specifics and unlikely what you are going to find as the common "rule of thumb" in the world.

---

Should my "unlikely case" be legal, though?Because doing away with AOC laws would make it legal.

quote:

---

The idea that there must be an age of consent or total abandonment of protecting chidlren is merely a stock dilemma. I have already said I am for laws which will protect children from predation.

---

But what is "predation"? Is my example of the 11 year old girl and the 45 year old man above "predation"?It seems that, according to you, almost nothing short of actual murder, could be considered predation.

quote:

---

no, limited, yes, yes, no, no, yes, no, yes... Age is important for the issues I said "no" to. The rest are constructs which do not need age related proscriptions of legal/illegal.

---

So, it should be legal for an 8 year old to stop getting an education because they don't like their mean teacher, go buy liquor on the corner, marry the 55 year old pedophile on the block because he can't get a driver's license, but you are going to stop them from deciding what to do with their own bodies WRT scientific experiments, and from gambling at Atlantic City?Interesting.

quote:

---

That said, none of them have any close reemblance to sex. Sex is a personal pursuit which people have right at their hands and generally like (choose) to do with others.

---

Scientific experiments something they can choose to do with their own bodies.

quote:

---

They cannot accidentally crash into a line of pedestrians at high speeds,

---

But, at 8 years old, they can forget to use a condom and then give STD's to lots of other people.

quote:

---

nor require a degree to understand what they are feeling (that is whether they want to do something or not).

---

How many 8 year olds do you know who is the societal equal of the 45 year old man they are having sex with so that they can have control of the situation?I'll have to finish this later, as I'm going to be late for work.

quote:

---

I'd like to ask you a favor and not use so many direct quotes and answers. It is elongating the response and in some circumstances is premature given later things I mention in my posts. It would be better (for me) if you could make your responses as compact as possible by dealing with the most important issues as collectively as possible.

---

Sure thing, and I think that's a great idea.I haven't read your reply to me as I'm posting this. I'll see if I can let this one stand as it is as a summery.Here's what I wrote a couple of posts ago, and I think this is pretty much the crux of my argument: link to infoI's also add that the urge to simply control other people is pretty much part of the human condition, and controlling someone sexually is part of that, and both the general conrol and the specific sexual control is easier when the one controlled is a young child and the one doing the controlling is an adult.And... This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-03-2005 11:06 PM

quote:

---

Uhhhhh... why not? It's just a social convention anyway. You are aware that some kids are set for marriage before they are born or shortly afterwards right? Yes arranged marriages still exist (in fact I knew a girl that defied her family to break hers).

​

The world is a bigger place with a lot of different mores than you seem aware of... and they get along.

---

Are you advocating middle aged men being in a long term, sexual relationship with children still in diapers and not yet fully verbal?Do you actually think it is completely arbitrary and "draconian" to have a law against 45 year old men using toddlers to have sex with?Let's say your 45 year old neighbor starts talking to you about how tight his new girlfriend's pussy is and then shows you a picture of her, and she's 3 years old? Do you object to that? Do you think that there should be a law agaist what your neighbor did?Sure, there's "child marriage" in other cultures, but that is a fundamentally different institution than in our culture.A man might be promised a bride before she is even born in that other culture. That man doesn't then start banging away at the infant moments after it's born.Remember, we are talking about sexual relationships within marriage or not, and always have been, and I find it particularly slippery on your part to answer as if you don't know that.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-03-2005 11:03 PM