Posted on 07/18/2006 4:42:43 PM PDT by wagglebee
I do.
So much for Abraham, Jacob, and King David....
Liberals will do anything to tear down the existing social order and replace it with their hedonistic dream.
Abstinence until they are married!
Unmarried is too young.
And marriage is between only a man and a woman.
I don't see the word "marriage" anywhere. Not even the responses.
There is nothing wrong with any willing sex in marriage regardless of ages.
So the question REALLY being asked is when is it too young for sex outside of marriage.
But all sex outside of marriage is wrong at any age.
Society in each jurisdiction has simply decided that above a certain age it will look the other way.
So the questions should have been:
1. At what age should marriage be allowed?
An analysis based on "legal consent" seems illogical if one can consent to marriage,
even if parental and/or court permission is required, at a lower age than for sex without marriage.
It was recently held in Colorado that only old British common law was in force, i.e. marriage at 10.
Until the last few decades, first marriage in the late teens to early 20s was near universal.
It was the complexity of modern society that tended to lengthen education and postpone marriage.
But then young people had sex anyway and got out of the habit of getting married.
Why buy the cow when the milk is free?
Late marriage has created a large pool of unmarried adults whose voting power has tended
to remove sanctions for sex outside of marriage creating the issue in the first place.
2. Who should be allowed to marry?
The long-standing practice of marriage between one man and one woman has been questioned.
Therefore homosexual sex covered by marriage has been impossible.
When there was less sex outside of marriage because of younger age at first marriage,
there was no constituency for recognition of other forms of sex.
Interestingly, the Judeo-Christian texts define sex between persons of the same sex or
too close relation as wrong, but says nothing at all about what age one should be.
(The Jewish Talmud sets a minimum age of 3 for marriage.
Islamic tradition specifies that girls must have their first menses.
Muhammad in fact consumated marriage with a 9-year-old, setting the traditional limit for Islam.
The first age of consent laws in Europe set 10 as the minimum age.
But British King Richard II 1367-1400 married Princess Isabella of Valois a few days before her
8th birthday in 1396. Reportedly she remained loyal to Richard after his ouster in 1399 and his death.
And everybody knows about Jerry Lee Lewis and his 13-year-old cousin-bride.)
3. At what age and in what situations should society look the other way for sex outside of marriage?
It is hard to make the argument that a free society should enforce a moral code on people
other than to uphold the contracts that they make.
Even the most religious in the Christian tradition should recognise that it is not for one
person to condemn others until they themselves are perfect.
So morality and religion hold no guidance other than don't do it.
In earlier society, girls especially were under the "protection" of their fathers until marriage.
Later marriage has produced a majority of people who reach adulthood and "emancipation" before
marriage which has broken down the paternal system and blurred lines.
Also, mobility has weakened paternal oversight when teens either drive or know someone who will drive them.
It is no coincidence that the prevalent view in the United States that the usual age of "consent"
and the voting age of 18 are closely aligned.
However that is not an argument why it should be so, only a demonstration that one can vote
one's self the license one wants.
My conclusion is that the advancing age of first marriage has created a situation rife with
moral relativism and arbitrary rules.
The rules will always be arbitrary unless people are encouraged to marry younger and have sex later.
It then becomes defensible and practical again to sanction all sex outside marriage as a civil issue,
and to prohibit sex before emancipation and with persons who are unemancipated and have
earlier emancipation through marriage.
The only age when it is okay to have sex is when you are married. If you are married at 15, fine. It is okay.
It is NOT easy to overcome the temptation when you are not married (it is tough!!!)
But, it is something that can be done.
I think you may have a point there.
My friend's 16 year old son didn't like his mama's no drinking rules, especially when she took his truck keys away and went down to DMV and removed her parental permission for his driver's license.
He called up Children's Protective Services and filed a complaint that she was physically and verbally abusive (mind you he's 6" and she is 5"2). So when the social worker comes calling, his mama told told the lady maybe foster care was appropriate to let everyone cool off and think about things.
In about 3 days he was begging on his knees to come home. She made him stick it out about 6 weeks. He was a whipped puppy after that. Yes, ma'am, No ma'am. I'd be pleased to take the trash out, it would be an honor.
It depends on the kid, the offense and the situation. But letting your kids know you won't put up with stuck on stupid can be very effective.
Well, I certainly do understand "tough love" is necessary sometimes and boundaries for our children are necessary at all times, and it sounds like in that case perhaps it was warranted -- especially if the child's accusations were false, kids like that make it hard on those of us who really were abused.
I was just appalled that someone would threaten to abandon their kid over sex, and the case you mentioned is a little different than driving them down there to Social Services, and dropping them at the door never to look back again, ya know?
The sex positive agenda has been waging this battle in the culture war for over 40 years.
They ultimately seek to have everyone sexually active at every age. They preach from Reich and Kinsey.
Introducing condoms into schools was not about preventing disease or pregnancy. It was about winning the argument about teen sex. It went from "if" to "when".
What's more, the GOVERNMENT is funding this agenda.
The sex positive proponents oppose abstinence not because "it doesn't work" but because they consider it an unhealthy suppression of sexual desires.
Sex positive advocates seek to end all moral judgements over sexual pairings regardless of age, sex, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
They consider sexual gratification a birthright and want everyone sexually active (even the children).
There is no concept of "age appropriate activity". It is a libertine's utopia.
Mohammed married a six year old. In fairness, he did wait until she was 8 before consumating the marriage.
The USED to be laws against unmarried fornication and adultery (both known as extramarital sex) as well as firm "age of consent" laws that did not make exceptions if both participants were under the age of consent or one ADULT was "near" the age of consent.
Try to get away with selling beer to a 20 year old. That "near in age" won't make any difference in your sentencing.
Same sex sodomy was a crime too. What you ask for WAS the law of land. But when all things homosexual were defined as a constitutional right (argued as acts in private bewtween consenting adults, expanded to minors/adults AND minors/minors, NOT strictly adults, as well as perverts in parks and bathrooms), it did NOT end all sex laws prohibiting acts between consenting adults. Prostitution is still a crime (but babysitting is not, so it is NOT the financial aspect) as is consensual incest (between adults but even between 2 minors should be ok if they are to be consistent). And there was a notable California case of incest prosection between two siblings (not even related) who were 18 and 20 (and had a kid) AFTER the Lawrence v Texas decision. The 18 year old boy was arrested for impregnating his 20 year old "sister".
So either there CAN be sex laws or there cannot.
I hope and pray that you are not a parent. I've lived through the process which you describe, and I would never in a million years wish it upon my worst enemy, let alone threaten somebody with it - certainly not my own flesh and blood! If you truly feel as though it's okay for parents to abdicate their responsibility to their children, just because it's difficult, well - I don't know what to say, except that I pray you change this attitdue before you bring children of your own into the world.
You got that right.
You got that right.
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.