Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,449 Year: 6,706/9,624 Month: 46/238 Week: 46/22 Day: 1/12 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Don't turn my God-fearing kid gay!
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 181 of 196 (204884)
05-04-2005 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
05-03-2005 10:28 PM


I'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.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by nator, posted 05-03-2005 10:28 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 182 of 196 (204886)
05-04-2005 6:41 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by nator
05-03-2005 10:59 PM


Are you advocating middle aged men being in a long term, sexual relationship with children still in diapers and not yet fully verbal?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by nator, posted 05-03-2005 10:59 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-04-2005 8:24 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 189 by nator, posted 05-23-2005 8:28 AM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 196 (204903)
05-04-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Silent H
05-04-2005 6:41 AM


Before we go any further, perhasp you could outline what other legal measures besides age of consent laws would be adequate?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Silent H, posted 05-04-2005 6:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by Silent H, posted 05-04-2005 10:11 AM nator has not replied
 Message 185 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2005 3:58 AM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 184 of 196 (204925)
05-04-2005 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
05-04-2005 8:24 AM


Before we go any further, perhasp you could outline what other legal measures besides age of consent laws would be adequate?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-04-2005 8:24 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 185 of 196 (205806)
05-07-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
05-04-2005 8:24 AM


bump... please don't run out on this.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 05-04-2005 8:24 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by nator, posted 05-07-2005 7:55 PM Silent H has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 186 of 196 (205950)
05-07-2005 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Silent H
05-07-2005 3:58 AM


Re: bump... please don't run out on this.
Got busy, and I want to take some time to prepare a good response.
Don't know exactly when I will get back to this, but soon.
Thanks for your patience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Silent H, posted 05-07-2005 3:58 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Silent H, posted 05-09-2005 7:38 AM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 187 of 196 (206380)
05-09-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by nator
05-07-2005 7:55 PM


Re: bump... please don't run out on this.
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...
It is widely, but by no means universally, agreed that incest by parents is abuse and should be illegal. Some societies considered incest an inescapable fact of life. In many societies some forms of sexual contact between close family members is socially (and sometimes even publicly) encouraged. For example, in Bali it was encouraged for mothers to sexually stimulate infants. This practice, among many others, is also common among certain tribes in Papua New Guinea, Polynesian and Melanesian islands. It is also common among the Japanese...
some have suggested that the incest taboo is meant to reduce the chances of congenital birth-defects that can result from inbreeding. Scientists have generally rejected this as an explanation for the incest taboo for two reasons. First, in many societies partners with whom marriage is forbidden and partners with whom marriage is preferred are equally related in genetic terms; the inbreeding argument would not explain the incest taboo in these societies. Second, the inbreeding argument oversimplifies the consequences of inbreeding in a population
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...
According to Alfred Kinsey's examinations in the 1950s children are capable of experiencing orgasm up from the age of five months. Kinsey observed that among three-year-olds the girls more often masturbated for sexual pleasure than the boys, probably because of their faster developed motor function. Lubrication of the vagina was also observed on sexually aroused girls — similar to that of adult women. Until boys start producing semen (around puberty), they can only experience dry orgasms. So far a difference in quality of the orgasms of children and adults could not be found.
With respect to quantity, children and adolescents seem to be more potent than adults. Boys are normally capable of repeated orgasms. Children are not necessarily restricted to direct manipulation of their genitals to reach orgasm, but can actually achieve it via rhythmic movements or compression of the thighs.
Sexual activity among children is often observed in nurseries. The motivation is mainly sexual satisfaction and to a lesser extent interest in the bodies of others. Children often temporarily lose interest in further exploration after initial satisfaction, and explorations continue over a longer period. Additionally about half of the observed sexual activities involve a partner of the same sex (In this context Freud speaks of the polymorph pervert nature of appetite of children) and thus do not have solely explorative motivations.
Sexual fantasies were observed starting at the age of three. It is unclear, in how many children sexual fantasies occur. Fantasies often play a role in masturbation of children. They widely vary...Sadistic and violent fantasies also occur...sexual preferences and the associated sexual fantasies show up early and stabilise during further development. Isolated reports of homosexuals and pedosexuals about their childhood say that they were aware of their affection to the same sex or to a certain age group and had corresponding fantasies. A fact about homosexual boys is that they much more commonly initiated sexual contact to men than heterosexual girls did.
This one surprised me...
In Germany, twenty cases of abortion for ten year old girls were reported in the year 2002.
But back to the line of argument, and this should be most noteworthy for you...
The way children choose partners for sexual activities is noteworthy. Most of the observed sexual activities were promiscuous; an available and willing partner is picked without prior intimacy as a precondition.
Early sexual activity of children is considered an important factor for further development. Genital play during the first 18 months is a reliable indication whether an infant receives sufficient emotional and physical affection...
There is a dependency between intensive physical affection during childhood and violent behaviour as grown-ups. James W. Prescott showed in a study on 400 primitive peoples, that in those peoples that give children only little physical affection or that were sexually restrictive, acts of violence were much more prevalent than in peoples who showed physical affection to children. Surveys in western cultures show that a high percentage of violent criminals and sexual murderers grew up in a sexually repressive environment.
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.
Sexual curiosity, arousal, and behavior are spontaneously expressed unless the child is taught to inhibit them. Children in the first two years of life engage in simple pleasurable handling of their genitals. A few begin masturbating before age 2, but many begin at age 2 or 3 as they have developed sufficient muscle coordination. If left unsupervised, play among 2- or 3-year olds can be sexual, although interest in sex play is not dominant... Even play as intimate as kissing of others' genitals is reported by nursery school staff. Occasionally, 5-year olds may attempt sexual intercourse if they have learned about it from parents or other children. This can go from anal sex or oral sex between two boys to vaginal sex between a boy and a girl.
Sigmund Freud suggested that this (ages 6-9) was a time of sexual latency, when the healthy child ceased all sexual interest and was vulnerable to trauma if he or she experienced sexuality. Researchers find little evidence to support this theory.
Children in sexually permissive or supportive cultures (those which permit or encourage early sexual expression) display a developmental pattern that is not apparent in sexually restrictive societies: In early childhood, masturbation alone and in groups leads to exploration and experimentation among children of same and opposite sex Mutual masturbation, oral stimulation of the genitals, and intercourse take place between children anywhere between ages five and twelve. Late childhood (prepubescence) is characterized by heterosexual role modeling and attempted intercourse; girls may begin having regular intercourse with older boys. In pubescence, adult-like heterosexual patterns replace earlier ones.
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...
In addition, sexual attitudes in western society have changed over time. Sexual exploitation of children was freely indulged in until the latter half of the 18th century, when it was repudiated. Then parents began to discipline children for their sexual curiosity and activity. During the Victorian era, the cultural belief that childhood was free of sexual knowledge, interest, and behavior coexisted with constant adult surveillance of children's sexuality. This produced a pervasive negative preoccupation with sexuality and a category of emotional disorders labeled "psychosexual."
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by nator, posted 05-07-2005 7:55 PM nator has not replied

  
Trae
Member (Idle past 4559 days)
Posts: 442
From: Fremont, CA, USA
Joined: 06-18-2004


Message 188 of 196 (208247)
05-14-2005 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by gnojek
05-02-2005 7:43 PM


If 1% of couples are willing to admit to the government that they're same-sex couples then how is your low guess of 1% a reasonable one?
2000 Census information on Gay and Lesbian Couples, by state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by gnojek, posted 05-02-2005 7:43 PM gnojek has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by gnojek, posted 06-05-2005 11:37 PM Trae has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 196 (210526)
05-23-2005 8:28 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Silent H
05-04-2005 6:41 AM


Are you advocating middle aged men being in a long term, sexual relationship with children still in diapers and not yet fully verbal?
quote:
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.
This is a bit of a dodge.
If a middle aged man wanted to marry and have sex with a child still in diapers, would that be OK with you?
Remember, you're the one who brought up "child marriage".
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 05-23-2005 08:33 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Silent H, posted 05-04-2005 6:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2005 12:25 PM nator has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 190 of 196 (213065)
06-01-2005 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nator
05-23-2005 8:28 AM


This is a bit of a dodge.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 05-23-2005 8:28 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 3:34 PM Silent H has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 120 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 191 of 196 (213091)
06-01-2005 1:01 PM


Although the topic you guys are discussing about is very interesting, it is nowhere near the topic of this thread. In fact, you guys wandered off into your own topic several pages ago.
Either one of you guys want to open up a new thread?

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 192 of 196 (213187)
06-01-2005 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Silent H
06-01-2005 12:25 PM


The question at hand is if there should be any age of consent laws.
The scenario I mentioned is one of a small child marrying a middle aged adult in which the adult wanted to have sex with the small child.
I only asked this question because you brought up child marriage.
Well, should the above scenario be legal, or should there be a minimum age for which people can consent to it?
All of the additional cultural information is great, but it has nothing to do with the question of consent laws.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2005 12:25 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2005 5:42 PM nator has not replied
 Message 194 by Silent H, posted 06-01-2005 5:49 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 193 of 196 (213232)
06-01-2005 5:42 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by nator
06-01-2005 3:34 PM


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.
I only asked this question because you brought up child marriage.
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.
Well, should the above scenario be legal, or should there be a minimum age for which people can consent to it?
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 3:34 PM nator has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 6072 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 194 of 196 (213235)
06-01-2005 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by nator
06-01-2005 3:34 PM


All of the additional cultural information is great, but it has nothing to do with the question of consent laws.
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)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by nator, posted 06-01-2005 3:34 PM nator has not replied

  
gnojek
Inactive Member


Message 195 of 196 (214588)
06-05-2005 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Trae
05-14-2005 10:33 PM


Ok, I said 1-2%.
So that would be a low end of 1 percent and a high end of double that.
So, maybe 1/2 of the couples are reporting?
Still doesn't rule out somewhere between 1-2%

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Trae, posted 05-14-2005 10:33 PM Trae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Trae, posted 06-21-2005 4:54 PM gnojek has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024