Replies

Since I am becoming aware that emotion is clouding your argument, allow me to cut to the essence of your argument, which is embodied in your line: “You are claiming that a child of 12 may not be harmed by sex with an adult.”

As any parent can advise you, children tend to be what Sigmund Freud called “polymorphously perverse”. They are simply curious and somewhat exploratory regarding sex.

Were it not for this behavior predisposition, parents (and the theologically inclined) could rest far easier as children grew up. How the curiosity of the maturing child is dealt with is important. Judeo-Christianity found the answer in marriage. Liberalism in casual sex.

The “guilt factory” phrase is accurate, as both religious and Liberal use guilt to achieve what they wish.

The religious use guilt to reinforce the proven, traditional “sex only between male and female, and only within marriage”. Liberals use guilt to enforce a narrow age matching agenda. As one FReeper explained, “only one or two years of age difference until at least 25 years old”.

That the Liberals are on a seriously wrong path can be seen in the area of general age group decisions experienced by the public school and the home school student populations.

In public schools, age segregation is near absolute, with student friends rarely out of the grade of the individual studdent by more than a year. Home school children have a far wider range of social contacts in terms of age.

Perhaps is may be of interest that the home school students are far more socially advanced, and have fewer out of wedlock bastards, contract fewer diseases, etc.

Age of first sex in these disparate groups is unknown to me, but I’d guess the home schooled to be older, and to be far more discerning in their choices. I’d also assume (probably a safe guess) that their choices were more acceptable to their parents than what a public schooled student dragged home. Assuming the parents ever met the partner of their child.

Note that the above supports the old position of leaving the matter of sex to the parents and their child, rather than the state. The essential difference between thee and me is that I fear the state interfering with parental authority in this area.

As a believing Christian, you might consider the risks of allowing government into areas long considered to be the realm of parent, child, family, and faith.

In closing, ask yourself why you feel it necessary to accuse me of promoting pedophilia when I actually “promoted” the historic position of Judeo-Christianity, wherein the parents were the responsible party, not the state.

Under that system, the role of male and female was rather static, was not “interpreted” by the jurist of the day on a bench in a civil or criminal court of the state, and the parents role was not undercut by a swarm of bureaucrats.

Beware of allowing the state to take over the role of the parent, because the central belief of all totalitarian states is “The Children belong to the state!”

Under totalitarian government, instead of safety, the child, the family, and the society at large finds tyranny.

Jew and Christian believe the child belongs to the parents because the child was given to the parents by G*d.

Some children are overly sexually experimental, and some are subject to the vilest of abuse, even killed. BUT, government intervention has been demonstrated to be worse than the historic, Judeo-Christian way.

The HillaBeast was wrong. A village can’t raise a child.

Parents must.

Lastly, in response to your snarky “Your pretense of reason and rationality is exposed.”, consider that I rely on reason and rationality because they work.

Your belief in your “internally revealed wisdom” based position seems to have blinded you to the reality that allowing the state to intervene, make that totally usurp, the authority of the parents in the area of their child’s sex education/experiences is a trade off worth the destruction of parental authority.

I disagree.