“If we were to have had a discussion without you defending pedophiles I’m sure I would be much more sociable.”
Claiming I am doesn’t make it so; repeating the false claim won’t correct the error.
Through most of history, a twelve year old male was just about ready to assume responsibility for his own acts. Note that under Jewish law, a male of 13, on his 13th birthday (12 years old plus one day) was considered responsible for his sins.
However, he usually married only somewhat over twice that age. In this society, we have educational requirements for earning a living and those are best met by postponing marriage until after al least high school.
Alas, we have allowed sex to become a casual recreational sport. And we have sexualized even pre-teens.
Not surprisingly, lots of early sex occurs. My posts tried to point out the contradictions inherent in this situation.
One can hardly make sex a casual act, bring sex into the lives of the rather young, have largely absentee parents, children with lots of time and no adult supervision - and then expect sex not to occur.
Time to “get real” as one student said.
Oh, claiming what history has observed since time immemorial as “preposterous” may not be your strongest argument.
I agree with you that casual sex is bad, and I even noted why AND gave reasons based on behavior and evolutionary advantage. Where we disagree is the assumption that “damage” has occurred.
When “damage” is hard to prove, as the frustrated posts indicate, would it not be better to concentrate on strengthening cultural acceptance of traditional marriage instead of supporting a swarm of intervenors? ‘Specially since the grandparents and the clergy do the gooberment intervenors work better and vastly cheaper as well.
I have a small research facility and an an ecologist, writer and educator.
Or in other words he was not expected to have sex until marriage which was not until roughly the age of 25. This does not support your argument...even a little. In fact the average age for marriage has remained around 25 for most of western history.
My posts tried to point out the contradictions inherent in this situation. Advocating overturning age of consent laws is not pointing out any contradictions...in fact I'm not sure if you have yet to point out a contradiction that speaks directly to the point that a 38 year old woman having sex with a 12 year old boy is wrong.
You have a big problem when you claim that History is on your side in this argument when it plainly is not.
"Where we disagree is the assumption that “damage” has occurred. When “damage” is hard to prove, as the frustrated posts indicate, would it not be better to concentrate on strengthening cultural acceptance of traditional marriage instead of supporting a swarm of intervenors?
Damage obviously occurs, if fact you could look it up as well and anyone, what we don't agree with however is that damage is completely immaterial. Consent laws are based on the concept of informed consent. Children are not deemed to have the life experience required to make informed decision concerning a wide variety of things including sexual partners. Any degradation of age of consent laws only give pedophiles cover for their actions. This should not have to be explained to any rational intelligent adult that has even a passing interest in our government and the rule of law.
I get it now.
Your liber(al)tarian position is that “goobermint” (how puerile!) has no right to enact any laws governing children at all, since they apparently “belong” to the parents sort of like possessions.
So if the parents think the child is ready to have sex at 12, the “goobermint” has no say in the matter. Or at an even earlier age, I guess.
Since liber(al)tarians also want prostitution legal, I wonder if your position holds that money can change hands when these 12 year olds have sex with 30 year olds.