Don't turn my God-fearing kid gay!

The majority of the nation, and pretty much the world, not to mention almost all of the organized religions view homosexuality as not normal. You can claim that the small area where you live views it as normal, but many more do not.This does not mean the majority are "right", but he has a correct position that "society" deems it as not normal. It is also the same argument used against polyamorous/polygamous couples, incestuous (adult) couples, and couples where one or more of the participants are below and arbitrary age (though obviously of child bearing age in this case). Indeed I have just recently seen the same argument made against women who work as prostitutes.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.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You had a point when you said society views it as not normal. You lost your point by adding since the beginning of time.Even if we counted "beginning of time" as the literal Biblical account, you can see that that is inaccurate. The Bible is quite plain that many, if not most, societies at that time (at least the ones around the Hebrews) were practicing/accepting homosexual sex acts (which is different than being homosexual).Indeed, if I remember right, it does not even indicate that homosexuality or such sex acts were denounced among followers of Abraham until the Mosaic laws were introduced. Some scholars have suggested that this was to help form an identity for the Israelites.Generally homosexual sex acts were not thought of as anything in the ancient world, though effeminate males were not regarded highly.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As much as I am prosex, I am also against overreaching in one's arguments. I think this is overreaching. First of all bonobos are not homosexual, they simply have no set sexual identities at all. Second why is there sexuality any more or less beautiful than any other animal's sexual nature?The best I think can be said is that the Bonobos probably exhibit the closest paradigm to raw or "natural" human sexual behavior than any other animal species, and that maybe we should recognize that sexual identity generally is not so fixed and perhaps we don't need to be so afraid of all of its manifestations. That is to say there is no "harm" intrinsically arising from sexual activity. This to me is just as ridiculous as saying you are proposing widespread heterosexuality. It is a utopian ideal which will not fit everyone, will certainly not answer all of society's ills, nor even be enjoyed by your kids.I think you'd be better off advocating widespread tolerance and realism regarding human sexuality, so that labels such as homo-, hetero-, bi-, etc etc become meaningless in a moral or political context, or even descriptive of a person's identity.In any case, if you are going to advocate raising your kids with Bonobo sexual proclivities, you may find a bit more issues you'll have to overcome than just homosexual sex bigotry. They also practice bestiality, sex with children, incest, and a sort of primitive prostitution.That is of course not to mention they don't have a lot of foreplay and the sex acts take a few seconds.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Humans, like Bonobos, are not born either homosexual or heterosexual. Before humans began getting moral about sexuality the concept of "homosexuality" as a personal identity didn't even exist.I think the sexuality of most higher primates is fluid and complex.And maybe anything with a high intelligence, look at the dolphins as an example.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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? The argument being addressed was one which involved children, thus my example had to include someone of child bearing age. But in actuality the female could be older. 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 is your perception. 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. 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. Don't confuse our stats for average lifespans in the deep past, with actual lifespans, or potential lifespans. Granted life was cheaper in those days with high mortalities, including childbirth.That said, I am uncertain why any of this should allow "society" to say that a couple which engages in this should be punished or ostracized in any way different than homosexual couples. Although I agree with the idea that kids are not going to be able to be providers, I am still unsure what that has to do with the issue at hand. Again this is taking sociological factors we have placed against such relationships in order to argue for its further persecution.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? 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. Thus it would seem you should agree there is a difference TODAY, as compared to PAST CULTURES, such that we should limit homosexual relationships. 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?Are we to change to what is possible for the greatest freedom to all minorities, or for the preservation of current "problems"?There can be coercion in any relationship, there is no evidence for greater harm intrinsically coming from a cross-age relationship... and I might add I did not say these had to be cross-generational. If you have evidence, you know where you can find my threads on that subject.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?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? 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. Thus the "arbitrary" aoc you are talking about dips down to the very examples you say need protection. So what then is the reason for AOCs? What do they provide? And if societies do function with AOCs which allow for the examples you think are not able to work out why are we to assume they are necessary at all?I might add, even if I totally bought into your argument, why wouldn't that simply argue for laws to restrict young pregnancies, or young people raising children by themselves?And of course I should add that this topic would end up touching on handicapped individuals. Many are incapable of raising children by themselves, but are allowed to have sexual relationships and thus pose the same risk of having children they cannot take care of, as well as being coerced. Thus it would seem you would have to be against sexual relationships involving the mentally handicapped. 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?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? How is that different than our society asking the same thing of gays? But actually they are the same when you get down to the root of the situations I have asked about. 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.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.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.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

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. 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.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. 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. I think you missed that your article supported my position. 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".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. 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. Yet the former is given the chance to try and procreate as much as they want.And again there are the handicapped. 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.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.Interestingly enough, the rules I think should be in place, or at least the ones I feel are justified (given wholly different criteria than what you have set out) would likely have mangled the teacher-student affair as well. But I don't want to divert into that right now. Yes, but there is little connection between that and the use of one's sexuality. 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.What criteria are you basing protection against one's own sexual choices, besides cultural expectations of harm? Sexual relationship, or bear a child? There is a vast difference between the two. 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. 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.I am unsure if a child of 8 is physically ready to have a child and my guess is it would likely result in a natural abortion, although I have heard of a ten year old giving birth. I do not believe an 8 or ten year old will be capable of providing material support, but emotional support is possible. 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. 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.It is only within cultures that have been formed by and accepted religious proscription on sexuality such that sexual play equates sexual relationship, with all the connotations of required intellectual sophistication, and thus seems like something a kid can't handle.You don't have to answer me, just ask yourself when you first became aware of yourself as a sexual being (that is you wanted to see and play with other people), and when did you act on this? If you had some rape or forced sex incident when you were young, perhaps that might change how you developed, but most people I have met recognize some of their earliest memories as containing sexual play.To be frank, I was not ready for a "relationship" until after I had had much sexual experience so that I was no longer confusing sex with love, or what society said had to be combined.Childbirth and raising children is separate from whether a person is ready for sexual play. That is not the anecdotal evidence I have. I know one family where the last two generations were all just on the edge of 12/13 (I forget which side), indeed almost clockwork down to month and day between sisters. I knew another family where they had at least 3 generations of women who began menstruating around 13, and indeed had a joke that the family tradition was for girls to get their first pregnancy at 13 (from the rural south where families are less nuclear and they all did just fine... one of the happiest families I have ever seen).I am not trying to say there is not a trend, it just goes against all I have experienced and I have yet to see a convincing study, especially one which includes good explanations why. I will read your article after responding here as it may need another reply all on its own. 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.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".In any case, you seem to be using this as a reason to dismiss its credibility instead of using it to realize the nature of your own need to move society toward it. That is your argument is the circular reasoning of using the fact that society has created a situation which is intolerant to justify further intolerance... until it magically changes.In the end kids have been having kids since the dawn of time. They have certainly been raising them, often with the help of others. Just because people have become more selfish and nuclear, does not mean that the children of children have not been taken care of, or could not be taken care of. While at the same time expressing concern for future kids that have kids, you are helping damn the kids that have already had kids.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.I am not asking for a utopia, I am a realist. Change is necessary in our society, and I am talking about how to find where we could be going and what is necessary at this point in time. 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. 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? I knew horrifically bad parents in their 30's and good ones in their teens. Empathy and caring have little to do with wisdom.Generally every first time parent will need some guidance from those that have gone through the experience, and learn for future pregnancies. No amount of book learning will make one a good parent.I will note that many cultures have, or used to have the age of maturity somewhere between 11 and 13. I believe that is still a part of Jewish tradition. It is only recently, after the rise of victorian antisex campaigns and, later feminist championing of the same ideals, that we came to equate sexual capability with the arbitrary age of voting, signing contracts, and perhaps driving.I would argue there is a reason to have wisdom before voting, signing contracts, and driving. I see little reason for that in sex. 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.I guess I am less worried about kids having kids, than keeping kids kids until they are 18 and then saying they are magically adults with wisdom. You have to live life to gain wisdom, not read books. I am talking about concensual relationships, but I have extended this beyond just adults, as I have extended it to other sexual minorities as well. I know it keeps getting caught in the whirlpool of age, but that was not the only subject I was talking about.As I have shown with my other thread on the subject, current scientific data does not show that consent is best conjoined with age, nor that harm is intrinsic to age. Indeed the authors of the studies went on to note the correlation between the one subject and other sexual issues believed "harmful" in the past.Science is on my side in this case. Not only does this have ramifications which I mentioned and hope you will have addressed, but it opens the door for exactly what the topic of this thread is about.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 have a thread on the latest data regarding this subject. Zhimbo read and replied to it, ask him. Not being sarcastic, just trying to cut to the chase. You have two questions in there.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?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. 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.Ignorance and lack of wisdom is a potential problem, age is not a solution. Neither is time in a school, nor even a degree. Indeed I am uncertain what degree one can get that will prepare one not to be used in a sexual relationship, except experience both with sex and with relationships. I assume some were and some were not coerced, just like any relationship. Given that most of the writers and public leaders of that time had experienced them and did not write about having felt hurt by them in any fashion, my guess is more often than not they were not coercive.Remember they even invented Ganymede to show the goodness of that kind of relationship. Please read the tread I have on the latest scientific evidence regarding this subject. I would also note that you should not confuse the likelihood of being able to be coerced with a factual percentage increase in coercion actually occuring, or the risk of being coerced increasing.I loathe statistics which come from a culture that has laws against something and demonizes it in general, as an argument that those stats hold true for what it would be like without the laws.We have been over this ground before with respect to prostitution and with drugs. You need to be much more careful in where you get your stats and how you use them. The link definitely did not show that age was more likely to result in coercion, even if it did show that many young people had been coerced. A big difference (even if it were real, which I don't think so). So you are saying that other societies are incorrect, despite having had little or no problems resulting from that decision, and conversely there are additional problems caused by having the laws... not the least of which is demonizing kids for doing what comes naturally. They are now considered life long sex offenders. This is better? This is NOT coercion?I submit you are picking that age because of ethnocentric biases which you feel comfortable with due to exposure to a society that was formed by and accepted antisex movements in the late 1800's as well as the feminist movement which used most of the same ideas, linking sexual ability with things like being able to vote.The reason why we had a voting is that it is thought one had gained experience by that age. Now we ask that people refrain from experience from life until that age? Not a good idea in my book. Who is "we", I just stated that in the Netherlands it was 12, I could go to find others that is as low as 9 or that have none at all. The cultural variation of this arbitrary number has been shown and you need to deal with it in a more serious way. hahaha... have you ever heard of Heidi Fleiss? How about Xaviera Hollander? My guess is you don't know many prostitutes at all, much less who would or would not become one.Yes the poor are more likely to try it, because it is easy money especially in a bad economy. That does not stop anyone else from doing it. Indeed there are several clubs near where I live where wealthy women do go to be prostitutes. They actually have the term "amateur hoertjes" signifying that they don't need the money at all.I would also say that I would wish no one had to do anything that they didn't want to, but they do. I don't see where sex should be viewed as different than any other activity. In fact I would argue that it is much better to have sex for money (if one wants to), then scrub toilets. Uh, perhaps on your way out of Dodge you missed my comments. I told you I have first hand knowledge of people in the MidEast who do that very thing because they want to, and in addition mentioned articles which exhibited this fact. I have even noted how it was within America before it was legal.This is going to be very critical: you are really allowing your view to take precedence over reality. You do not seem willing to recognize that people actually like and want to do this, even under the most repressive cultures which risk certain punishment.History has given you clear examples, and if you want to pretend that everyone in afghanistan is in lockstep on the issue, and will only vary under duress, that is a very biased view point. Wow, nice stereotypes (sarcasm). 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. 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. Not only do I not see AOC laws protecting children, they do in fact coerce and punish children and require society to buy into fallacious arguments of why they are necessary.AOC laws and the arguments which advocate them are to my mind irresponsible and reckless. Given that we can show clearly where they come from and the only real reason they exist... its pretty well documented... I also find it intellectually ignorant to continue arguing for them. They are as bad as the other antisex initiatives at the time, as well as the holdovers which include miscegenation, homosexuality, masturbation, etc etc. 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.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. They cannot accidentally crash into a line of pedestrians at high speeds, nor require a degree to understand what they are feeling (that is whether they want to do something or not). I am still not sure how you do not recognize the circularity of yoru argument. Yes homosexual adults act like heterosexual adults as long as your only concern is for "adult". Homosexual adults do not act like heterosexual adults if your concern is the nature of their sexuality.Your desiring adult to be an intrinsically important condition is just as arbitrary as nature of sexual act, or race of the actors, or etc etc. History and even moderns state of scientific evidence shows age is not an important qualifier, or should I say if you want to view one set as significant you will find the other conditions equally significant.Sadly I find that in all of this you have not dealt with the mentally handicapped. They have a great bearing on everything you said for the reason to ban sex based on age. I hope this was a simple oversight on your part. I will not move further with you on this subject until you address why the mentally handicapped, or the aged, should be allowed to have sex, while children need to be protected by draconian proscription.I would also like a better explanation of what the problem would be for sexual relations where no pregnancies can result.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This method of posting is dragging me into something I don't have the time for and what I was looking to avoid from now on. Thankfully it is not overtly negative of making me feel bad, but it is pressing on me time wise.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.That's not to say you should not use quotes, but limit them to the few you need to deliver a reply and not repeat issues which are recurring.Unfortunately I have already written a point by point, before coming to my conclusion that it would be best to condense. I don't want to put more energy into a rewrite at this point. That is exactly what anyone else can appeal to, including anti gay advocates. Remember homosexuality was once a clinical problem because people "knew better", and has only been changed recently due to political pressure by people who feel we "know better now". There are factions which want it returned because they "know better". Thus who knows best is not concluded at all.As far as I can tell the practical definition of ethnocentrism is a belief that "what we do now is because we know better than we did in the past."It is possible to overcome this bias by excluding a priori beliefs of this kind and starting from scratch, working up definitions and looking at how evidence fits those definitions. It is quite possible that we have gotten on the wrong track and are building a self-fulfilling prophecy. Actually I'm not. And I'm not just blowing my horn. What pretty much everyone here at EvC has resisted on this subject is a good discussion of sexuality and more importantly harm in sexuality. What one has to do is not start with any preconceived notions and instead start with a clinical definition of harm, find where any and all sexual activities might cause such harm (clinical evidence), and then discuss what laws would be necessary to remove that harm.That is a pretty neutral discussion and yet I can't seem to get it started, instead we get stuck on worrying about the end state of laws... will X be condemned and Y allowed? Am I a bigot who hates X or a practitioner of Y?What I did do (years ago) is define harm for myself, discovered what evidence we have for harm regarding sexuality, and then figured out what laws I think ought to be in place, or at the very least what are the only ones necessary to remove the potential issues. This is incorrect. I do believe that in general sex is a pleasure and so healthy and good for one's health. That has been borne out by studies. And conversely the harm of "bad" sex has been shown to be less destructive than feared (mainly stemming from violence not sex).However there are certainly cases of using sex to abuse others, as well us just plain bad (usually negligent) sex. And of course there is sex which is undesirable for children based purely on moral reasons by parents. Thus, like anything else, not all sex is good.This reality does not argue for simplistic and draconian laws such as AOCs. People need to be protected from sex using laws as much as they need to be protected from the problems associated with playing sports or eating or listening to rock music. That is we deal with the problems, and not the potentialities. That is not true. You are availing a bigoted stereotype in order to propose some logical reason people created a bigoted law. You need to do more research. But I don't want to get sidetracked, even if this were true, all that would (at most) preclude is extensive tight incestuous reproduction, which would be the same as unrelated couples who are unable of having healthy children. Why can the latter stay together and adopt but the former can't even get together?Your slippery slope of lots of deformed children is hardly likely, given that it is also your argument that they will have spontaneous abortions and children incapable of reproduction due to ill health right? The stereotype you used was of people having problems due to pollution, poverty, isolation, and ignorance... not merely inbreeding.If your argument is that relationships be ended based on potential for deformities, and you were consistent, this will have to hit others besides incestuous couples.An anti-miscegenation advocate could avail themselves of this argument pointing out that sickle cell is possible to whites pretty much only if a white person has a child with a black person (or anyone with a black). You have just added another ethnocentric concept. What is "fully informed", what does it mean in an objective sense, and how is that applied consistently across the sexual realm or to the needs of children?An anti-gay activist can readily use "fully informed" against homosexuality, especially allowing children to be put into homosexual homes that will have different forces at play... including dangers... that are not inherent to a heterosexual home. The same will go for mixed race homes. I didn't say benefits would not be seen and that is actually countering your claim of why we should stop it. The question is of deficits, and that is mainly seen over successive generations of inbreeding, and little access to larger gene pools. The article I discussed in the other thread went into what criteria seems to have scientific utility on that subject as well as what might be useful in court. Thus an argument from ignorance does not work here. You need to inform yourself to a greater degree on this subject. Some argue that homosexuals are people with sexual disorders which have confused them regarding their proper sexual orientation, and are being coerced by other homosexuals and those who are pro-gay to remain confused and not seek help. They sure don't want homosexuals and the liberal elite deciding whether a person was coerced into being gay or not.Likewise they do not want homosexuals and the liberal elite deciding if children were coerced into going into a home which is not "normal" by societal standards.The only logical difference between your stance and theirs is the nature of the bigotry in the initial premise. If it is about odds, which is what you have claimed, the public can protect itself from the odds of harm from passage of a virus, even if it is self inflicted harm, using elimination of sexual activity which is the highly correlated with it.This is where the patchwork nature of your argument begins to show. You'd be better off reworking your entire stance from scratch. Think about what constitutes harm (physical realities/potentials for physical realities/ moral outcomes), and then what does each kind of sexuality give you (inherent vs sociological), and then what would be necessary or allowable to create the protection.Right now you vacillate between all these criteria. I said there was little connection between sex and driving, not none. You have just stated the little connection there is: there is risk. But that is the same for any endeavour a child goes through. Whether to join a sports team can be equally dangerous and just as coerced as sexual activity.I can see you really dislike older men and view any that might like younger people as inherently dangerous. How is this not the same as having a fear that a child hanging out with someone from the "bad area of town", or of a different race or religion is somehow more likely to be dangerous?And why can an anti gay person not feel there is greater risk for a child in a home with gay parents? Or that they are likely to have a greater risk of abuse?But in any case let me get back to the driving analogy. One does not need to be sophisticated to have and enjoy sex. A kid simply cannot operate a car safely, due to the way cars are built, and highways constructed. They were built for adults to use. Sexual organs have no such criteria. This is either going to cut out sex altogether, or definitely fall below 16. How did you come up with that age?And again there is the mentally handicapped and elderly to think about.Why is it better to criminalize children and force the ones that are enjoying themselves to hate themselves, rather than punish the people (old or young) in the specific cases where a child has been hurt? This society's ability to underestimate the ability of young people and overestimate problems never ceases to amaze me. Rather than these generalities, how about coming up with something concrete?I already admitted that a child will not be able to provide in the same way as an adult, nor likely provide guidance in the same way. Besides that, what are the extra traumas that a child will go through and not be able to handle in much the same way an adult will?Have you ever seen kids going through cancer or other debilitating illnesses, compared to "grown ups" faced with the same issues? If anything children seem more resilient. They won't become a lover in the same way that a 30 year old would. Different ages, even between a 20 and a 40 year old, bring different views and natures of sexuality. It would be different, not necessarily harmful, nor necessarily potentially more harmful.And why do you keep bringing up men, there seems to be a growing trend of women getting caught at the same thing. Do you see a difference between an 11 yo boy and a 45 yo woman? How about an 11 yo boy and a 45 yo man?If stats show anything it is generally the last one you should worry about most. And again that does support antigay activists in arguing that such a home would not be good for kids. No, it is a habit of yours to conflate sex with reproduction. For the human condition, sex is generally just about pleasure and thus there are many other outlets than reproductive ones. This is not to mention we could simply make illegal reproductive sexual acts, much as we currently make illegal all acts. Where and who judges which are loving and capable, you? There are families in Utah which are also capable and loving, but you apparently would not want them or one of their advocates deciding their home is better. I'm sorry, are you now proposing laws to eliminate sexual activity of the poor or ignorant or lazy? Not everyone has to have the same ambition or desires for such specified success as you have.Who knows, maybe a kid will be less of a debt than college, and give the girl much more happiness in life. I've certainly known people that have lived that way and been happy. Well when you have laws that will slam them in prison, my guess is as far away as possible. If you changed that to laws which criminalize abandoning a child, even if not married, when the spouse is under 18 (or at any age), that could change things. Draconian to me is simply slamming a "not possible" label on an activity when other possibilities are credible and in fact more reasonable. I think that is practically the definition of draconian.To label a child who engages in sex under a certain age as a criminal or engaging in a criminal act is really draconian as far as I'm concerned. Might as well outlaw eating candy (can they be fully informed about obesity?). How is this different than an adult pushing a child into a sport (where the child can be injured or killed), or into enjoying something like sweets (where health or eating disorders can result), or conversely berating their choice of foods or clothes, or pushing them into an acting career? The rest are allowed.The only consistency I am seeing is that sex is considered different and more harmful, because sex is considered different and more harmful. It is not from evidence. Actually no, it's their parents' body. But let's say it was the kid's body, why on earth would a kid be submitting themselves for scientific experiments for, and how would they understand what the technological meaning is of what they are being told. Some book smarts would be needed before signing on to that one. This reveals your bias.You view coercion to do something a child might not want as likely and so in need of protection, even to the extent of damning all kids who might actually want to do that thing. In addition you don't view the coercion of children to not do something they want as somehow unlikely or harmless. Isn't coercion in any direction undesirable?But let's say it is consistent to think children should be coerced not to do things they want, and not coerced to do things they don't want. How does this not effect gays?Antigay advocates might readily argue that adults are actively manipulating children to submit to living in a home that does not provide all they could have, as well as presents risks they may not understand at the time, and if they knew they might not want. It is arguable that deprivation of physical and mental nurture that would be inherent in a homosexual home (no exposure to different sexes as providers) poses potential risks. Most such activists are consistent in this position as almost all equally dislike single mothers or fathers. 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. Over 60% of the population (grown ups) believed that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 despite repeated statements to the contrary. I feel very little problem in holding a position that it takes less brain power or will power than an 11 year old to have believed that. It is ignorance and maleability plain and simple. All you have identified is aspiration, not gullibility. If the person tried something other than a puppy, he could get the 45 year olds as well. That's how telemarketers work, and they often do more damage.A guy can also do the same with elderly and mentally impaired individuals, again, what is the difference? Where did you get this idea? The blind do not get better by being led by the blind. This appears to be the "innocence" myth regarding kids. They need some protective screen from adults as if they are tainted by interaction with adults or the "adult world".I do think kids should have some fun with other kids, but it isn't always possible, and clearly not necessary. As far as learning is concerned, they are almost always better off with an adult than with a kid of equal age.That does not mean I think kids "ought" to learn about sex from adults, as I don't believe every instance of learning must be the potential best, but it does negate believing that kids are better learned about sex (or anything else for that matter) from hanging out with other kids equally not in the know. No it wouldn't. You are simply not thinking beyond the box formed by late eighteenth century and feminist doctrine. Draconian measures are not the only kinds of laws available to address the issue.In any case you also missed the point I was making. You gave a best case scenario for gays and a worse case scenario for child sex. That is a bit self-serving don't you think? What are you talking about? I have repeatedly stated that people can be coerced and violently raped which are short of murder, right?As far as predation goes, antigay advocates view homosexuals as generally predatory, and they have evidence to back them up. By predation I assume you mean looking to have sex with someone, and willing to encourage it even if the other person is unsure if they want to or not.If you have some other def, I'd like to know. Well you took it out of context. Do I think all those practices you listed should be legal, as defined by not having laws against it?... yeah. That does not mean there won't be laws in place which in practice would limit some of those far fetched things from happening.I find it interesting that you'd want children, who you view as incapable of making decisions, labeled as criminals or engaging in criminal activity. Also that you view sexual play the same as any of those artificial and extra-human activities. We are born with organs and we are born to play with them. AND generally choose to do with others? Give me a break. Really, sex works like that? And that is the same as operating a vehicle that is not built for their body type, and roads for their intellectual capacity to judge distance and maneuverability? Give me a break.These are very stretched analogies which only hinge on one thing: risk. Who has to be in control? All they have to feel is that they are enjoying themselves and were not forced into a situation they don't want. That is after all what evidence is accumulating on the subject.If a 45 year old offers to take a bunch of kids to disneyland, my guess is you don't stop to care that the kids are not in control of the situation.Neither do you seem to care when a couple of 45 year olds decide they want a kid to be their child, when the kid might have actually wanted to have a mom and dad instead of two dads or moms, or not wanted to have to face the challenge of ridicule, or wanted a parent that would be capable of discussing the sexual issues they might face as a heterosexual... in other words that the child is in control of their family relationships.All of your arguments are usable by antigay advocates.Again you don't have to answer point by point. You can take it all in and then give a general reply to the most important points, which I believe are formulating a coherent response regarding potential harm (which will then clip many other relationships) as well as control and consent (which would clearly clip homosexual parenting).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I see what you are saying, but I am pointing out that "control" just like a couple other issues you have mentioned ("consent" and "potential for harm") are not really the underlying rules for yoru judgement, if they were then you'd end up striking more than the issues which you are against. And as I am trying to point out as well, antigay advocates can help themselves to the exact same arguments.Your problems are:
1) You view it as necessary to be protected from sexual acts in general, unless they are legitimated by very culturally defined roles. Or maybe I should say that you start with the understanding that culturally defined roles for sexual acts are what are necessary for protection.
2) Your only deviations from traditional prosciptions are one popular one (miscegenation) and one increasingly popular one (homosexuality), which youu have suggested is popular in your area.
3) You hold the traditional bigoted positions on the remaining ones with just as tight a grip as those who hold the others, without looking into the evidence which would link them (for good or bad). If you did you would discover that you'd have to become more flexible or more rigid than you are now.That is an observation, but I don't want to get bogged down in arguing them. Just keep it in ming that it is why I think your rules tend to fall apart on inspection (and it appears you have recognized at least one area where the rules are not matching).Since you claim "control" is the issue, let me attack that as a primary example, and I will attempt to avoid bringing in stickier issues like child sex, which seem more problematic to you.As you state above controlling others is a part of human existence. With that I have absolutely no argument. In almost all interactions someone will submit and someone will take charge or impress (I think "dominate" is a little strong) their desires. That is the basis for learning social skills such that societal action is possible.I would argue that you do not find "loss of control" important in any other situation except sex with minors, and are willing to deny control is important for minors, when it does not involve sex, and even if it means a potential problem for the child, as long as it supports something you like. Here is a hypothetical:You have children and for some reason your husband is already dead, and you are dying. Thus the future welfare of your kids is at stake. For convenient reasons you have only three choices of families who you can give your kids to. You don't know anything else about them except they have enough money to raise the children, and the following...1) A heterosexual couple.
2) A polygamous family (nonmormon to remove religious issues).
3) A homosexual couple.Instead of guessing here what you would do, and arguing against it, let me explain what I would say and why it is the best option.Personally I would want my kids to go with the heterosexual couple, and neither 2 or 3. The reason is that all financial things being equal, the child is most likely to get more experiences of nurture (exposure to different sexes as role models), as well as not having to face the legal and social problems the other two will face.Now I wouldn't tear my hair out if either of the others were chosen, I suppose I'd prefer 2 over 3 in that polygamists usually have less problems with watching the kids, but the question is what would I prefer? Which do I actually believe would provide the BEST environment for my kids?I do not believe it is possible to decide otherwise, at least not being consistent, unless you decide to run "what if" scenarios rather than "what is".And that is one major problem for gays trying to get children. It really is not the best solution for a child, and the state may have a right to preclude that, given the potential problems involved. It is sort of a vicious circle, but the very one you endorsed earlier... society needs to improve to lessen the potential problems, but it is unlikely to improve unless children are first allowed to face the problems. Your vote was for not changing.What would you choose, and if not for the homosexual couple, then why should the state allow it? If the homosexual couple, or you view it as equal, does that not require you to accept a "what if" and deny the reality of what the children will face in the society and laws we have now?In any case, there are further problems and the antigay advocates do push this angle and that is related directly to control. In this hypothetical we are discussing a loss of control for the children. Such a decision, though important and with long lasting impact, will always be made by others and so control is not in the hands of teh children.Currently the state is attempting, even if failing, to find the best solution for children to be adopted. Many say the state should recognize the deficiencies that will exist in a homosexual household as limiting for the child and as it is, the child might not want to belong to such a household. To say argue that gays should be allowed to adopt kids, is to patently say they should be able to coerce and control kids, not for the interests of the kids, but for the emotional desires of the gays to feel like they have a family. By placing kids in a gay home they are introduced to problems that would not exist in a hetero home.Yes, gays can claim that you will find all the same problems in a gay home as in a straight home, but that is not the end of the story, you will find additional problems in a gay home. You will force a child to deal with issues they may not want to deal with or are ready to deal with.And in a way the gays already admit this. One of the big rallying cries on the issue of nature vs nurture, gay activists argue with all the problems they face as compared to heterosexuals, WHY WOULD ANYONE CHOOSE TO BE GAY? If that is true, and this is a claim made by gays, why would anyone choose to live with gays where there will be so many more problems, if they didn't have to?In the end gay adoption is about controlling the choice of kids to further a political and social agenda, over the choice of the children, placing them into households which are not the norm (not even 10%), and do face increased problems that the majority do not face.So if control is important, especially with important choices, it seems you would have to deny gays and gay supporters from controlling children and forcing them into situations which would not be for the best... at least not at this time.I hope you see that this is a logical problem you are facing. As a heads up, after this will come issues of sex with the mentally handicapped and elderly. You might want to start thinking about this in context with the current issue.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-04-2005 06:50 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Even if I were to "advocate" that, it would be sheer fantasy land. I don't think long term sexual relationships are possible with kids. That is not their nature.It is more telling that you keep forcing sexual play to involve longterm relationships.I am not going to get dragged into a case by case argument, where you exhibit your most lurid examples of what might happen. The fact is that AOC laws are not the only solution to questions of protecting kids from harm. They are arbitrary and draconian by nature (as I have explained why).Despite my openmindedness on sex, there are many situations which even if not coerced are physically or mentally repugnant to me. I am not planning on going through a checklist for you, nor is it relevant to law or issues of harm.In reality, as opposed to any personal feelings of whether I find it exciting or repulsive, a toddler will not intrinsically experience harm by being sexually stimulated, nor will they intrinsically experience harm by stimulating someone else. Indeed if they are naked with others they tend to do so. Heck, if you want some evidence, on dutch tv's version of "funniest home videos" they recently had a toddler playing with their siblings penis in a bath tub.Whether a 45 yo is involved or not is besides the point, unless you want to show me the evidence for a mechanism where genitals know age difference and so cause harm?As far as a person sticking something that will without question cause physical damage into someone else, yes that would cross from repugnance to something I feel ought to be stopped. I am unsure why you feel AOC laws are the only mechanism.You need to control your fantasies (or I guess I should say nightmares) and quit equating sexual play with forced penetration. It is clouding your assessment of the reality of the situation.An antigay advocate could cart out the nightmare of a 45 year old gay couple abusing a young boy in their charge, maybe even packing hamsters into him, does that mean gay adoption should be proscripted? Allowing gay adoption will certainly give them greater cover to do such a thing.That is the same kind of fear mongering you are exercising here... is it worthy?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There are a variety of measures available, and it is pretty irrelevant to the actual topic under discussion which is basis for laws, so I don't want to swerve into them in detail.As an overview, AOC laws do not prevent the very things you are discussing, what they do is punish anyone who has commited them if/when they are caught. Thus they serve no utility to prevent and have the very real negative effect of sweeping up everyone in the same net.If the issue is harm, then it is very straightforward. When harm is observed to have occured, or behavior which might indicate harmful acts are being commited, then an investigation is enacted and when harm (physically damaging or coercive acts) is shown, the perpetrator punished.Given the nature of evidence regarding harm and its possible latency, it may be best to initiate investigations based on, and count as harm, a child feeling like (s)he was forced to do something against their will.I would also argue that, though not necessary, it could be useful to protect parental rights by allowing them to initiate legal proceedings against those who engage in sexual acts/overtures towards their children. In such cases harm to the child does not need to be proven, as the harm would be violating parental authority.I think it is important to allow parents the legal right of raising their children according to their own beliefs and that includes sexual proscriptions, even if I find them overly harsh or mistaken.There could be additional sentencing guidelines based on whether the perpetrator used a position of authority to gain trust of the family, or coerce the victim.These of course will also NOT prevent the things you mentioned from occuring, but they will prevent innocent sexual play which does not involve harm from being dragged into court, hurting the child and whoever the alleged perpetrator was (which at this time could also be a child).These are not the only possibilities.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Maybe you got busy, not sure. I am just hoping that this is not a cut and run. I gave you what you asked for and I'd like at least an admission that it was correct, or some form of reasonable dispute.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

As you prepare a response, I would like to add some evidentiary links which help define more what I am talking about, and show the errancy in your position.I have already given scientific links, with a thorough explanation, in the thread on the Rind study. Thankfully, well coincidentally, while looking up something on marriage at wikipedia (contemplating something for RAZD in another thread) I discovered they had pages on the subjects we were discussing.You mentioned that we "know better" now. But these pages should make you question that assertion, as they will show the variation across time and culture regarding sexual "knowledge". Yes we can know factual things, but most cultures give this up in order to feel assured of its moral stance. This is a direct parallel to the issue on Evolution vs Creationism. Creationists are demanding change to affect knowledge in order to feel assured in their moral stance.I was pleased to note that Wiki's discussion of these topics, while sometimes slightly inaccurate (conservative), were almost dead on to what I had been telling you. The first link is to their page on Incest. At that page you will find info on the variability of incest taboos, but more importantly the lack of evidentiary purpose to such taboos ("inbreeding" section), as well as the nonnecessity of such laws to prevent child deformities... some excerpts... So who knows better? And given what is known, what is necessary for protecting people from harm? The second link is to their page on child sexuality. In addition to the related quote above regarding some parent-child relationships found cross-culturally, this page examines scientific knowledge about individual human sexual-behavioral development. In this you will find a number of supports for what I have explained, which drastically undercut any arguments about intrinsic harm, even from salacious examples that you have given.Some excerpts... This one surprised me... But back to the line of argument, and this should be most noteworthy for you... So is sexual restriction more harmful than permissiveness? That might explain one of the lingering questions about why Americans are more violent than any other society. We are extremely sexually repressed, especially when it comes to kids. Even Islamic communities are in practice more sexual, though not as promiscuous or public, than the average american. Of particular note is the nature of where current American views of child sexuality orginated. It does not mention feminist adoption of them, but it should be clear this is the working hypothesis of traditional feminist sexual dogma... I should also note, the "exploitation" mentioned above should be suggesting prostitution, and not just "sex with". I am not sure which they intended, but the initial movements against child sexuality in the 1800's was focused on prostitution, which they argued could be ended by stopping sex with children altogether (kind of like current moralists arguing all harm to children can be stopped by ending sex with children). After adoption of AOC laws designed to stop prostitution, the slippery slope toward viewing sexual children as unnatural began to happen as outlined above.I do hope that this will promote some free thought on your part toward this issue, and a rejection of the classical feminist dogma which you appear to hold.This is not to say you are being as boldly misanthropic as the classical feminists, or meanspirited in your legal demands, just that your preconceptions of human sexual nature and needs read classical feminist, which is a direct lineage of artificial victorian era anti-sex propaganda. They clearly are not what science or a detailed examination of human sexual history support.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-09-2005 07:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, quote mining and ignoring my additional posts to you is quite a dodge.I did answer your case specific question, though I broke it down into specific acts so maybe you didn't recognize it, or maybe you just didn't get to it. Go back and read my post.As it is, I am now going to repeat a statement in that post. I am not going to address case by case incidents, because all that does is pull away from actual debate on the subject, and you usually use general statements that are loaded questions (forcing me to answer it your way or not at all... like a stock dilemma).How about not getting off on a tangent and deal with the real issues, which were the utility of AOCs, or harm in child sexuality. Post #187 of mine should be very informative.This message has been edited by holmes, 06-01-2005 12:26 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

My entire line of response has been that AOC laws are not the only ones necessary to prevent harm to children... or even to stop the very case you are talking about.I have gone to some lengths to show that AOC laws do not make sense regarding the nature of sexuality in children (it "criminalizes" children), and have even answered your straightforward question of how else to deal with it.The fact that you have refused to deal with my answer to your direct question on AOC alternative possibilities and have continued to duck the other points I have brought up as well as dismissing the info which DOES impact this issue, indicates how serious you are about having this discussion. No, you only brought it up to be able to avoid discussing the issue. There is absolutely no reason why "bringing up" child marriage would necessitate you raising that question as if it somehow encapsulates the entire issue. That is a single case and as I have already stated, that simply allows you further escape into case after lurid case just to get an emotional response.People do allow child marriages. AOC laws are a separate issue than whether such marriages should exist. Can't you see the stock dilemma?Sorry, but I have already discussed alternatives and shown how AOCs do NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM ANYWAY! Your scenario is not the only option.I really do not understand how people that rip into others for this kind of conduct can turn around and do it themselves. Especially when notified about it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh by the way, I gave you psychological-biological development info, not cultural info. They impact consent laws directly because consent laws have developed under an assumption that children are asexual beings harmed by any contact with sexuality during their developmental stages. That assumption is plainly in error.Perhaps I should turn your question around on you: If there is no harm if a 45 year old man marries and has sex with a child that is still in diapers, should it be illegal? If so, why?If you believe there is harm perhaps you'd actually return to debate and deal with the evidence I gave in order to show where harm is possible, and then what solutions can be made to prevent or punish such harm being done.You are arguing from an apologist position, assuming the validity of the laws and so defending them with any reason you can throw (creating the ad hoc nature of your position), rather than starting with a foundation and building it toward real solutions.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)