Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: OWK
What's with all these libertarians concerned about this kid getting some?

OWK, I'd be interested in your opinion of this.

37 posted on 12/21/2001 12:09:13 PM PST by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]


To: angelo
OWK, I'd be interested in your opinion of this.

How about mine, until he gets here?

I'm a serious Christian. I'm a worship leader, I've led evangelism-oriented ministries, I've known the Lord for 25 years.

People DO NOT go to Hell because of what they do - they go because of what they are, unregenerate, fallen human beings. We are ALL born that way, and if we don't meet the Lord in a saving relationship through Jesus Christ, we WILL wind up in Hell.

In my opinion, one of the primary reasons that sex is supposed to be between man and wife is because of all the problems that result otherwise. There are bonds that form, etc., that are designed to be FOR LIFE when we have sex with another human being. That's how a loving Father designed it to work.

This young man, short of a miracle, had no future on this earth where the problems I mention above would happen to him. His life was about to end.

While I *do* believe that sex belongs inside marriage, I also know that we ALL have a very hard time being perfect. I don't know if this boy was saved or not - I would guess not. I don't think that we, as Christians, can hold non-Christians to the same standards that the Bible prescribes for us. It just doesn't work. And that being said, I'd be in favor, after a long talk with him to see if he knew the Lord or not, of letting him have his wish. If he WAS a Christian, I would feel otherwise - I'd remind him that his life wasn't ending, and that it would be better for him to stay pure, for the purpose of his relationship with God being as "right" as we can possibly make it. Which really isn't very "right" for any of us :)

So that's what I think :)

77 posted on 12/21/2001 12:23:06 PM PST by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

To: angelo
OWK, I'd be interested in your opinion of this.

Sexual behavior must be consensual to be moral. Consent requires two things. A statement of affirmation, and a comprehension of that which is being consented to. I hold that children do not have the emotional or intellectual capacity necessary to comprehend the consequences of consent to sexual behavior. As such, children may not consent to sexual behavior.

In general, I've been content to recognize the standard measure (chronological age) of consent, knowing full well that it was imperfect. Not all people reach a mature enough state to transact their own rights by 18, and some reach this level of maturity earlier. It's hard to say what the right answer to this situation is without talking to the 15 year old. Even then it's a bit dicey... but staring death in the face makes you grow up pretty damned quick.

95 posted on 12/21/2001 12:28:32 PM PST by OWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson