You can’t demonstrate the kind of damage done to a child, which is what a 12 year old is, by this kind of encounter *scientifically* unless it’s diagnosing the diseases he may have picked up.
The harm from this kind of abominable encounter cannot be reduced to mere numbers and statistics.
Looking for scientific evidence that harm was done before determining that it was wrong is just looking for excuses to justify it.
Exactly. Human beings’ inner life and experiences and emotions are not always scientifically quantifiable.
“Looking for scientific evidence that harm was done before determining that it was wrong is just looking for excuses to justify it.”
Allow me, for the purpose of discussion to overlook your claim that my question was “an excuse to justify it”.
Before we pass laws regarding anything, we should ask for the facts justifying the extension of government. And, make no mistake, another law IS extension of government.
As an example, “Cap and Trade” is in trouble because we question the premises of the law. I asked for the facts because the general history of man runs contrary to the premise that the boy was “damaged”.
Those justifying a law which is counter to the general experience of man should be willing to justify their position. And, it has been the general experience of man that post puberty boys are mostly equipped with an overly active sex drive and a grossly underdeveloped sexual morality.
Whether their explorations damages them, or whether the loud and insistent claims that they must be damaged does the damage (assuming and damage can be demonstrated) is but one of a multitude of unanswered questions.
Ad hominum attacks are not really an answer, more an indication of a lack of any valid answer.
Would not your phrase “this kind of abominable encounter” be best reserved for homosexual relations? As I remember Judeo-Christian theology and its influence on language, that term was used in the Scriptures by G*d to refer to male/male sex, not male/female sex.
Just a thought.
PS Does not your argument about not being able to demonstrate damage, but you claim it exists fall into the came logical difficulties as “I can’t demonstrate unicorns, but they exist - and we must have laws relating to unicorns”?