Posted on 10/01/2015 6:50:25 AM PDT by wagglebee
And this basic principle is despised by the left and libertarians.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I've copied it out for study and meditation
i see a push to redefine ‘consent’ to mean whatever the progressives want it to mean. yes will mean no, and no will mean yes before too long. don’t fall for this crap. the girl is using the same logic that got us gay marriage, and that slipper slope has little to do with consent, and more with preference
I’m sure a great many people here at FR are totally sold on consent and self-ownership concepts.
Uh-oh. This is not going to sit will with our Libertarian FRiends who think that legalizing pot and prostitution will bring about social harmony.
As if they give a damn about social harmony.
They're too busy trying to figure out why Rand Paul's campaign collapsed.
What a Catch-22. They’d have to be sober to understand why it collapsed.
I think this needs to be decided by the SCOTUS. They always get things like this right. //sarc off//
Thank you wagglebee, for bringing this article to us.
Too tired to do much with it now, but saving to contemplate on when rested.
I will say though, that very few people under the age of thirty know enough to give an informed opinion, much less consent, on such life changing subjects.
In the article she says she and her father brought each other out of some very dark places.
Well, that’s what fathers are for.
We continue to raise our children long after they have reached the age of legality.
For a father to use the emotional turmoil of such a scenario only speaks to his own low morality.
A father is usually the one male his daughter trusts completely. After all, he has been the male she has turned to all of her life.
To turn that trust into an outlet for his own lust and needs reserves a special place in hell for him.
I pray that these people turn away from their path and instead seek the love and forgiveness of Christ, that their souls be saved and their burdens lifted from them.
On strictly a medical basis, that marriage could be potentially very harmful to any offspring as any genetic anomaly from the father’s DNA will come from both parents in this case. Not only immoral, sick but unkind to offspring.
adopted children who had recently reconnected with their biological relatives coined the term “Genetic Sexual Attraction” (GSA) to describe the intense romantic and sexual feelings that she observed occurring in many of these reunions. --- From sub link.
And so it begins...
Just as opinions without reasons are worthless, consent without understanding is worthless.
“I will say though, that very few people under the age of thirty know enough to give an informed opinion, much less consent, on such life changing subjects.”
Umm, if the age of consent were 30, the human race would be dead very quickly.
And this basic principle is despised by the left and libertarians.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
How very true. But when you apply these notions of consent and freedom to issue like drugs - OMG! The liberals here at FR freak out!
LOL. the Paul nuts are too confused to ever understand why they are perceived as loons let alone wonder their panderer is near bottom.
More and more couples are waiting until they have established themselves in a career and are financially sound before they begin families, so no the human race would do just fine.
Winston Churchill said “If you are under thirty and you are not a liberal, you have no heart. If you are over thirty and not a conservative you have no brain.”
With the average lifespan what it is waiting to start a family would be best for everyone involved and society as a whole.
By waiting, the average person would get the foolishness of youth over with before children were born.
The family would be better off because in most cases the parents would have already begun purchasing their home,
The parents would benefit by being able to enjoy their families more because they would realize what gifts their families are and could give of themselves instead of giving money and material things to show their love and appreciation. The divorce rate would probably be lower as people would more likely realise what is important to them and marry accordingly. They would also realize that the passion of first love gives way to the comfort of a deeper and more lasting love.
Children would benefit from living in a home made more stable by the life experiences of their parents. With a lower divorce rate the children would not have to face the problems that go with broken homes.
Society would benefit because there would be fewer broken homes with only one parent.
The children would be less likely to behave destructively and would be better able to handle adulthood.
The savings in social programs and lower incarceration rates would be a huge benefit to society.
I realise what I proposed is a one size fits all solution, knowing that one size does not fit all.
Some in their early twenties are perfectly capable of making very good decisions.
Some could live as long as Methuselah and still make bad decisions.
On the whole though, we would all be better off.
“More and more couples are waiting until they have established themselves in a career and are financially sound before they begin families, so no the human race would do just fine.”
Biology is a harsh mistress. At 30 years old, a couple only has a few short years of fertility left (if they are lucky). Otherwise, if they want to breed, it means very expensive fertility treatments that most people probably can’t afford.
Considering how low the birthrates already are in industrialized nations, this would be the death blow.
Thank you for the article!
Thanks. but rather than have Barry's or Bernie's or Hillary's "comprehensive moral framework" imposed on me, I'll stick with the Founder's ideal of limited government and leave "morally, spiritually, and culturally" in their proper venue of families, churches, and voluntary associations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.