NO! the room erupted in unison. After all, this is the age of consent. If sex is consensual, that's good enough for them. If you are wondering what the CDC has to say about this ... so am I.
This is just sickeining!
HA Ping.
DISCUSSION ABOUT:
How Young Is Too Young? (Teen Sex)
It saddens me when I see what society is turning into.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be included in or removed from the MORAL ABSOLUTES PINGLIST, please FReepMail wagglebee.
Wow a whole room full of child molesters and thay all have government jobs ?!
Who'd a thunk it ?
I didn't even realize NAMBLA really existed. I thought South Park made it up.
"I think she still holds it against me."
Rim shot please.
I've got an easy answer for those experts... Too young is when you are not able to be personally responsible for the possible consequences of your actions (Physically, Financially, Emotionally, or otherwise). This is regardless of one's spiritual or faith-based views on the subject.
I mean isn't this a basic moral value that has nothing to do with sex at all? It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, for gosh sakes!!! No wonder they are having such problems with this idea, the majority of these people most likely support socialistic economic policies so they would see nothing wrong with these future teen parents ending up on the public dole -- all the better to control them, I guess...
As for some of the other concerns - like NAMBLA, that kind of stuff enrages me as it seems like some of this is a push on the part of abusers to take away the stigma of child abuse and such. THAT is where this just gets absolutely reprehensible. Don't these "sexperts" get educated in the very real effects of sexual abuse, or do they believe it's a myth or something crazy like that? Age differences for example when dealing with adults and teens -- there is a huge opportunity there for the adults to manipulate and control the teens. Anyone who doesn't see that should have their head examined, IMHO...
If they aren't old enough to raise and provide for children they concieve, they aren't old enough to have sexual relations.
If they can't even agree on "If there's grass on the field, play ball" then they are truely pedophiles.
She followed up with "Pedophile Chic Reconsidered"
Unfortunately I can't find the 1st one on the Internet; I'd have to subscribe to Weekly Standard to read it.
These people need to be locked up for the rest of their lives.
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.
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.