Replies

Duras, I find your need to engare in snarky argumentum ad hominum somewhat offputting. However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assuming your reply to be more than it appears, I’ll attempt to reply to your post.

I find your desire to defend child molestation off putting as well but I’ve been replying to your posts with as much grace as I can manage.

The request for sourced data is reasonable, except to those whom Eric Hoffer aptly dubbed “true believers”. Given that during most of human history, in most all cultures, females married earlier than men would tell any but a “true believer” something.

I disagree. Asking for proof that pedophilia harms children is akin to asking if cannibalism is really wrong or requiring that one prove that slavery really harmed slaves. It’s something that any reasonable American should understand instinctively, based on the very basic premise of the ethic of reciprocity. Failing to understand this very basic principle demonstrates a lot. Another thing that any reasonable American should also instinctively understand is the concept of informed consent…something that we know a child cannot give. This is the first time marriage has been introduced and it’s a red herring argument however in the shared history of western culture it has never been a cultural norm to have an adult marry a child. Further since the dark ages the average age of marriage has been remarkably similar.

Should you be either a Christian or a Jew, your theologicl system should have given you a basis for a less ‘unbalanced’ if not downright simplistic/snarky reply.

This is not a theological debate. This is purely a philosophical debate based on logic concerning law and the reasons behind them.

Desperation leads to straw dogs arguments. I said nothing of queers because I know them to be an infinitesimal part of the human race. Again, were you either from a Christian or Jewish background you would know that such people were seen as ‘abominations”.

Simply because you don’t want to deal with the logical premise of the questions you’ve asked doesn’t mean that they are not germane questions.

What was good enough for the Jews, Christians, and the people who founded America is sufficiently acceptable to me. May I suggest a bit of reading? Other than Libroid trash, that is.

Your arrogance to suggest that I need to read something other than liberal trash is amusing when you are so obviously ignorant. The people that founded America understood the ethic of reciprocity…in fact one could say that it is the foundational principle of our constitution. They also understood the concept of informed consent.

Your problem may lie in your acceptance of the state usurping the role of the parent in deciding a child’s maturation. Do realize that until the rise of Libralism and the Agenda Uber Alles mentality of that set, the parents of a sexually maturing child (of either sex), not the state, determined (or profoundly influenced) when and whom their offspring married.

Your problem is that you think that our laws, generally based on reason, and specifically in this case based on reason, logic, and history, are faulty although you have presented no valid justification for this position. Again this brings into question your motivation for questioning the age of consent laws. Parents can, if they so choose, allow their minor children to marry but if attempting to do so outside of a reasonable constraint the state would step in.

Calm your self, contemplate your inner adult, and consider the following:
1. When the state, with the best of intentions, attempts to arbitrarily set an age for sex or marriage, they have embarked upon a fool’s errand. Such detailed data is required for such decisions that only a family, aided by relatives and hopefully, assisted by coreligionists, can hope to wisely counsel a young person.

My inner adult huh...have a struck a nerve or something? Our society has determined the age of consent and the age of majority not arbitrarily but based on reason and history. We are a society ruled by law, and while not all laws are based on logic and reason, these laws certainly are. You have made no valid argument yet why child molestation should be considered ok by our society.

As you may have noted, history notes some remarkable females who married early and were very successful. My opinion is “Gooberment can’t raise children”
2.When goobers in gooberment agencies are given power to interfere with family decisions, including age of first intercourse, the results are not such that any but a proponent of expansive government could support.

Provide examples of all of the remarkable females that were married at age 12. This is the age of the child of the article. I suggest that if you are a parent and you think it’s ok for your 12 year old to marry or have sex then you are an unfit parent and are no more able to give informed consent then your 12 year old child. A reasonable person would understand that this is not an example of government “raising” a child. It’s government performing it’s valid function, that of protecting the rights of an individual.

Using Florida as an example, children removed from sexually abusive families are abused sexually more while in state custody. Nothing to support there.

So is it your position that it’s ok to leave a child to be molested by their parents because they might be molested when placed in foster care? Or is it that the age of consent laws, and incest laws, are stupid illogical and outmoded and the children are just exploring their burgeoning sexuality in a “safe” envioroment? How about instead we make child molestation a capital crime and break the cycle of molestation?

“If you need scientific evidence to prove that raping a child is harmful not only are you asking the wrong question, you have serious issues.”
No, I have no “serious issues”, but that you have a need to project such on me speaks volumes about you.

Typical liberal argument method. You are the one defending child molestation not I.

The discussion is about appropriate age of consent, who grants that consent, and the role of the state in such consent.
The discussion was about why one would ask for evidence of harm in a clear cut case of rape and then whine about logical inferences stemming from this request.

Given your need to accuse me of “serious issues” it seems to this non-Liberal that you appear to be a Liberal, indulging in LiberalSpeak as you avoid the questions I raised to snidely imply that you think me to be a person with serious confusions regarding appropriate things sexual.

When you are questioning why a 38 year old woman raping a 12 year old boy is deemed wrong by our society and asking for evidence that it actually does harm to the child, then a reasonable person has to ask what your damage is. Trying to suddenly conflate it with marriage is intellectually dishonest at best. Further, suggesting that the age of consent be lowered to 12 absent evidence of harm demonstrates that you don't understand the concept behind the age of consent laws, the concept of informed consent, the concept of the rule of law, the American concept of Government, and what the age of majority means.

Beyond discussing this with your psychiatrist or psychologist, I can only suggest less projection and more attention to the issues I raised.

Defending children against people questioning age of consent laws, with such an extreme example, isn’t a position that I’m ashamed of and it’s not indicative of any pathology that I’m aware of.

In closing, do you have any references to hard data sources that early sex is “damaging” to males? If so, how is “damage” defined, and what methodologies were used in the determination.

Define early. Are you questioning age of consent laws based on the premise that if there is little permanent damage then the concept of age of consent should be abrogated? Do you believe in the concept of informed consent? Is it possible to violate an individual rights without harming said individual? Should parents have the legal authority to obligate their children in legal contracts?