Because sexual maturity implies emotional maturity.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, I agree, but the law regarding the age at which a 'child' becomes an 'adult' is totally arbitrary, to a degree - as this case shows, girls, and some boys, often reach sexual maturity before the age of 14.SenorToenails wrote:
Freedom of religion does not allow disregard for the laws of the state. If that means they have to deal with defined ages for adulthood, then so be it.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
They just define when a child becomes an adult differently.
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- The Count is in: 31 of 53 teen girls are pregnant
Yes, but that arbitrary limit is the law, so it must be obeyed.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, I agree, but the law regarding the age at which a 'child' becomes an 'adult' is totally arbitrary, to a degree - as this case shows, girls, and some boys, often reach sexual maturity before the age of 14.
Agreed, but Kmarions point was that there is no honour in grown men screwing children - now, the question of whether it is morally right or not comes down to what you believe, not what the law says. Legal Law and Moral Law are not the same thing.SenorToenails wrote:
Yes, but that arbitrary limit is the law, so it must be obeyed.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, I agree, but the law regarding the age at which a 'child' becomes an 'adult' is totally arbitrary, to a degree - as this case shows, girls, and some boys, often reach sexual maturity before the age of 14.
Fair enough.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Agreed, but Kmarions point was that there is no honour in grown men screwing children - now, the question of whether it is morally right or not comes down to what you believe, not what the law says. Legal Law and Moral Law are not the same thing.
Do you think she had a choice in the matter?
I don't know.SenorToenails wrote:
Fair enough.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Agreed, but Kmarions point was that there is no honour in grown men screwing children - now, the question of whether it is morally right or not comes down to what you believe, not what the law says. Legal Law and Moral Law are not the same thing.
Do you think she had a choice in the matter?
Wait for any evidence whatsoever of anyone having sex with 12 year olds, go on, hold your breath. No sane person of any faith requires the state to point out the obvious.In some ways, Perry said, the children have "wonderful qualities — understanding of others, respect for their elders, kindness." But they have also been taught the outside world is filled with Satanic forces — movies, music, games — and as they are exposed to them in foster care, Perry says, they may well believe "My parents were right!" In some ways, Perry said, this situation highlights "fracture lines in our culture" about lifestyles and parental control. "But the state is not saying 'Don't wear those dresses," Perry says, referring to the legal basis of the Eldorado raid. "It's saying you cannot have sex with 12-year-olds."
When you hear of kids not knowing who their mothers are that is also a falsehood misunderstood by the authorities and public; in a household where there are three wives, all the children call the ' moms ' Mother ( followed by her first name ) as in Mother Ann, Mother Penny, etc. To the children, they certainly know who their mothers and fathers are; it is that these other women also mother the children. There is shared responsibility.
I have heard that to cure these poor, desperate children the state has prescribed three hours daily of Fox Realty Television, and additional hour of Rock Of Love. They are mandated to spend at least three hours a day surfing the internet, chatting with people online and playing free flash arcade games or Americas Army ( Cult Raid Edition ). They will be taught valuable life skills like tagging, and how to reload a Glock.
Seems how my esteemed forum brethren are eager to get the ropes and construct the reeducation camps I thought I might remind ya'll of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
In fact, no where in the Constitution anywhere does it dictate that religion is under the purview of law enforcement, quite the opposite in fact, but never mind such trivial, outdated details as the Bill of Rights, the fact is that America has spent itself into the poor house and goddamnit the public needs something to be angry about, because if they noticed just how fucked up the state of our economy was, well...they just might get upset and make a run on the banks.
We wouldn't want that now, would we?
What's a few hundred children tossed into the meat grinder of state custody? If it means that we all get to continue on leading our fat, stupid decadent lives a little longer it's all good, right?
I'd toss out the charge " Idiots ", but it wouldn't be fair.
How can any body here but me feel the way I do? How could I blame any body for feeling rage against these religious kookballs? I don't.
I am agnostic.
This is one of those rare times, however, when I look at the public, and how easy they are whipped up into a frenzy that I look up towards the sky;
" forgive the Lord, for they know naught what they do. "
I agree with the point that taking these kids away from their parents is a terrible idea.ATG wrote:
When you hear of kids not knowing who their mothers are that is also a falsehood misunderstood by the authorities and public; in a household where there are three wives, all the children call the ' moms ' Mother ( followed by her first name ) as in Mother Ann, Mother Penny, etc. To the children, they certainly know who their mothers and fathers are; it is that these other women also mother the children. There is shared responsibility.
I have heard that to cure these poor, desperate children the state has prescribed three hours daily of Fox Realty Television, and additional hour of Rock Of Love. They are mandated to spend at least three hours a day surfing the internet, chatting with people online and playing free flash arcade games or Americas Army ( Cult Raid Edition ). They will be taught valuable life skills like tagging, and how to reload a Glock.
I agree 100%. Freedom of religion is something that many forget when they hear about 'cults'. Apparently the definition of 'religion' is negotiable to some...ATG wrote:
Seems how my esteemed forum brethren are eager to get the ropes and construct the reeducation camps I thought I might remind ya'll of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Freedom of religion allows you to practice however you see fit. But it does not allow the breaking of other laws, like having sex with minors. If that is the case (as the news article says), then their freedom of religion will not absolve them of that.ATG wrote:
In fact, no where in the Constitution anywhere does it dictate that religion is under the purview of law enforcement, quite the opposite in fact, but never mind such trivial, outdated details as the Bill of Rights, the fact is that America has spent itself into the poor house and goddamnit the public needs something to be angry about, because if they noticed just how fucked up the state of our economy was, well...they just might get upset and make a run on the banks.
Fuck whatever law/religious doctrine guides the pedophile. Common sense is a personal responsibility. Are we getting bored and just looking desperately for a scholarly debate?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Agreed, but Kmarions point was that there is no honour in grown men screwing children - now, the question of whether it is morally right or not comes down to what you believe, not what the law says.SenorToenails wrote:
Yes, but that arbitrary limit is the law, so it must be obeyed.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Oh, I agree, but the law regarding the age at which a 'child' becomes an 'adult' is totally arbitrary, to a degree - as this case shows, girls, and some boys, often reach sexual maturity before the age of 14.
One does not necessarily exclude the other.Legal Law and Moral Law are not the same thing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
The point is that both legally and morally, if they're sexually and emotionally mature and consenting, then what the fuck does any amount of age difference matter?Kmarion wrote:
Fuck whatever law/religious doctrine guides the pedophile. Common sense is a personal responsibility. Are we just getting bored and looking desperately for a scholarly debate?Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Agreed, but Kmarions point was that there is no honour in grown men screwing children - now, the question of whether it is morally right or not comes down to what you believe, not what the law says.SenorToenails wrote:
Yes, but that arbitrary limit is the law, so it must be obeyed.One does not necessarily exclude the other.Legal Law and Moral Law are not the same thing.
The only room for debate is at what age someone is considered to be sexually and emotionally mature.
Biologically, that can easily occur as young as 14.
Legal law, sensibly, errs on the side of caution. Moral and religious law often does not.
Dude, read.ATG wrote:
Wait for any evidence whatsoever of anyone having sex with 12 year olds, go on, hold your breath. No sane person of any faith requires the state to point out the obvious.
So, take into account the 9 months, and some couldn't have been older than 13. Is that much better than 12?BBC wrote:
Authorities believe that of the 53 girls aged between 14 and 17, 29 are already mothers and two are pregnant.
Of course, it could all be media bollocks, and they lumped them all into one category, while only the older ones had children. Then again, at what age would you say it is acceptable for older dudes to have sex with younger girls? 16? 17? Or not until they're legally adults?
Wow.. just wow. Imagine a world without a standard. Again anyone that thinks its normal for a 13 year old to want to have sex with a 50 year old man is a tool. Think about it for a second.. their innocence is being exploited. So I guess you think child prostitution is ok?.. or maybe you just have a hard drive loaded with kiddie porn?.. after all they most likely posed willingly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that both legally and morally, if they're sexually and emotionally mature and consenting, then what the fuck does any amount of age difference matter?
So yea. Sure biologically some girls can get pregnant (OP would have filled everyone in on this). Emotionally should they be having/raising kids? pfft..Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The only room for debate is at what age someone is considered to be sexually and emotionally mature.
Biologically, that can easily occur as young as 14.
Legal law, sensibly, errs on the side of caution. Moral and religious law often does not.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
See bold/underlined text.Kmarion wrote:
Wow.. just wow. Imagine a world without a standard. Again anyone that thinks its normal for a 13 year old to want to have sex with a 50 year old man is a tool. Think about it for a second.. their innocence is being exploited. So I guess you think child prostitution is ok?.. or maybe you just have a hard drive loaded with kiddie porn?.. after all they most likely posed willingly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that both legally and morally, if they're sexually and emotionally mature and consenting, then what the fuck does any amount of age difference matter?
Some are that emotionally mature.Kmarion wrote:
So yea. Sure biologically some girls can get pregnant (OP would have filled everyone in on this). Emotionally should they be having/raising kids? pfft..Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The only room for debate is at what age someone is considered to be sexually and emotionally mature.
Biologically, that can easily occur as young as 14.
Legal law, sensibly, errs on the side of caution. Moral and religious law often does not.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-29 01:28:25)
Some, as in >1%.
Few people are emotionally mature by 14.
Few people are emotionally mature by 14.
Fixednukchebi0 wrote:
Some, as in >1%.
Few people are emotionally mature by 20
Last edited by LividBovine (2008-04-29 01:33:49)
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
Why are we even discussing this ?
Freedom of religion surely does not cover the sexual abuse of little children, does it ?
Sure, taking all 463 from the compound sounds a little too much, but what would have been the alternative ? Investigators couldn't be sure which kid might have been the victim of abuse. I mean, it could have been only 5, or 10, maybe 20 or 50, even all of them. So they made the decision to remove all of the kids from the colony, just to make absolutely sure that none of them was left in a possibly abusive environment.
I would expect them to be questioned, examined and evaluated by psychologists and then either returned to their parents or kept in foster care, depending on the outcome of the investigation.
If this had happened with some redneck family in Alabama ( sorry for the stereotype, I know I am generalizing, but still.. ), people here would be all over authorities to "get the children out of there". Why would anyone make an exception just because these people happen to be religious ?
If anything, I'd be more willing to take action, simply because this abuse was obviously institutionalized, and systematic, under the cover of religion.
Freedom of religion surely does not cover the sexual abuse of little children, does it ?
Sure, taking all 463 from the compound sounds a little too much, but what would have been the alternative ? Investigators couldn't be sure which kid might have been the victim of abuse. I mean, it could have been only 5, or 10, maybe 20 or 50, even all of them. So they made the decision to remove all of the kids from the colony, just to make absolutely sure that none of them was left in a possibly abusive environment.
I would expect them to be questioned, examined and evaluated by psychologists and then either returned to their parents or kept in foster care, depending on the outcome of the investigation.
If this had happened with some redneck family in Alabama ( sorry for the stereotype, I know I am generalizing, but still.. ), people here would be all over authorities to "get the children out of there". Why would anyone make an exception just because these people happen to be religious ?
If anything, I'd be more willing to take action, simply because this abuse was obviously institutionalized, and systematic, under the cover of religion.
re-fixed.LividBovine wrote:
Fixednukchebi0 wrote:
Few bf2s members are emotionally mature
If you mean why are we discussing age of maturation, the point is that the question is whether they are 'little children' or not - if they've reached the age of sexual maturity, then they're not 'children'.B.Schuss wrote:
Why are we even discussing this ?
Freedom of religion surely does not cover the sexual abuse of little children, does it ?
Then, on the question of whether it is 'abuse' or not - if it's consensual and they're emotionally mature, then it's not abuse.
Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-04-29 01:56:53)
The age of consent goes as low as 9.Kmarion wrote:
Wow.. just wow. Imagine a world without a standard. Again anyone that thinks its normal for a 13 year old to want to have sex with a 50 year old man is a tool. Think about it for a second.. their innocence is being exploited. So I guess you think child prostitution is ok?.. or maybe you just have a hard drive loaded with kiddie porn?.. after all they most likely posed willingly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that both legally and morally, if they're sexually and emotionally mature and consenting, then what the fuck does any amount of age difference matter?
Just because you have been brought up the way you have and have been brainwashed into thinking what is normal does not make you right. By Texas law, it is illegal and no one is arguing that it isn't, but trying to argue what is 'right' comes totally down to perspective and the individuals involved.
I did, I addressed the absurdity of your statement. If they are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex why stop there. If they can have kids at 13 (consenting of course ) lets let them start drinking at 13.. lets send them off to fight wars. The fact that you even think that a 13 year old is capable of being emotionally secure enough to have kids says it all.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
See bold/underlined text.Kmarion wrote:
Wow.. just wow. Imagine a world without a standard. Again anyone that thinks its normal for a 13 year old to want to have sex with a 50 year old man is a tool. Think about it for a second.. their innocence is being exploited. So I guess you think child prostitution is ok?.. or maybe you just have a hard drive loaded with kiddie porn?.. after all they most likely posed willingly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that both legally and morally, if they're sexually and emotionally mature and consenting, then what the fuck does any amount of age difference matter?
Sure..Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Some are that emotionally mature.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
lol.. Is your little png file supposed to be reasonable justification for pedophilia? (I must be brainwashed)..what a joke.DrunkFace wrote:
The age of consent goes as low as 9.Kmarion wrote:
Wow.. just wow. Imagine a world without a standard. Again anyone that thinks its normal for a 13 year old to want to have sex with a 50 year old man is a tool. Think about it for a second.. their innocence is being exploited. So I guess you think child prostitution is ok?.. or maybe you just have a hard drive loaded with kiddie porn?.. after all they most likely posed willingly.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that both legally and morally, if they're sexually and emotionally mature and consenting, then what the fuck does any amount of age difference matter?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … Canada.png
Just because you have been brought up the way you have and have been brainwashed into thinking what is normal does not make you right. By Texas law, it is illegal and no one is arguing that it isn't, but trying to argue what is 'right' comes totally down to perspective and the individuals involved.
btw , you havent a clue what I am arguing.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Emotional maturity comes about largely through cultural education - we have a tendency to 'protect' our kids from the realities of what it means to be an 'adult' - in places where parents are more open about these issues with their children then emotional maturity is likely to develop earlier.Kmarion wrote:
I did, I addressed the absurdity of your statement. If they are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex why stop there. If they can have kids at 13 (consenting of course ) lets let them start drinking at 13.. lets send them off to fight wars. The fact that you even think that a 13 year old is capable of being emotionally secure enough to have kids says it all.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
See bold/underlined text.Kmarion wrote:
Wow.. just wow. Imagine a world without a standard. Again anyone that thinks its normal for a 13 year old to want to have sex with a 50 year old man is a tool. Think about it for a second.. their innocence is being exploited. So I guess you think child prostitution is ok?.. or maybe you just have a hard drive loaded with kiddie porn?.. after all they most likely posed willingly.Sure..Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Some are that emotionally mature.
And why is this? Could it not be the natural progression of our species? Is part of protecting our children ensuring that they are in the best place emotionally AND physically for sex/children? Nature has progressed, it is natural for us to "protect". The instinct is there for a reason.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Emotional maturity comes about largely through cultural education - we have a tendency to 'protect' our kids from the realities of what it means to be an 'adult' -
Xbone Stormsurgezz
See highlighted text.Kmarion wrote:
And why is this. Could it not be the natural progression of our species. Is part of protecting our children ensuring that they are in the best place emotionally AND physically for sex/children? Nature has progressed, it is natural for us to "protect". The instinct is there for a reason.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Emotional maturity comes about largely through cultural education - we have a tendency to 'protect' our kids from the realities of what it means to be an 'adult' - in places where parents are more open about these issues with their children then emotional maturity is likely to develop earlier.Kmarion wrote:
I did, I addressed the absurdity of your statement. If they are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex why stop there. If they can have kids at 13 (consenting of course ) lets let them start drinking at 13.. lets send them off to fight wars. The fact that you even think that a 13 year old is capable of being emotionally secure enough to have kids says it all.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
See bold/underlined text.
Sure..
You have been culturally brainwashed. Everyone has. And no its not 'justification' for paedophilia, it's to show you differing cultures have differing views on what paedophilia is.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. Is your little png file supposed to be reasonable justification for pedophilia? (I must be brainwashed)..what a joke.
btw , you havent a clue what I am arguing.
Again you show your 'cultural' upbringing. There are countries that have a legal drinking age as low as 11. Just because you have been brought up in America (one of the most 'conservative' countries in the world, baring some Muslim states) does not make it either 'right' or 'normal'. In fact, going by world wide social medium, America (and you) is 'wrong'.Kmarion wrote:
I did, I addressed the absurdity of your statement. If they are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex why stop there. If they can have kids at 13 (consenting of course ) lets let them start drinking at 13.. lets send them off to fight wars. The fact that you even think that a 13 year old is capable of being emotionally secure enough to have kids says it all.
Exactly.DrunkFace wrote:
You have been culturally brainwashed. Everyone has. And no its not 'justification' for paedophilia, it's to show you differing cultures have differing views on what paedophilia is.Kmarion wrote:
lol.. Is your little png file supposed to be reasonable justification for pedophilia? (I must be brainwashed)..what a joke.
btw , you havent a clue what I am arguing.Again you show your 'cultural' upbringing. There are countries that have a legal drinking age as low as 11. Just because you have been brought up in America (one of the most 'conservative' countries in the world, baring some Muslim states) does not make it either 'right' or 'normal'. In fact, going by world wide social medium, America (and you) is 'wrong'.Kmarion wrote:
I did, I addressed the absurdity of your statement. If they are emotionally mature enough to consent to sex why stop there. If they can have kids at 13 (consenting of course ) lets let them start drinking at 13.. lets send them off to fight wars. The fact that you even think that a 13 year old is capable of being emotionally secure enough to have kids says it all.
I am constantly trying to teach my kids to be more mature and expose them to things and let them ask questions, and then answer their questions truthfully.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Emotional maturity comes about largely through cultural education - we have a tendency to 'protect' our kids from the realities of what it means to be an 'adult' - in places where parents are more open about these issues with their children then emotional maturity is likely to develop earlier.
I will not accept the idea that I should teach my children enough about the real world so that they are mature enough to be sexually active by age 14.
The point here, to me, is that they broke the laws of the state that they were living in.
And my 2 cents on the maturity issue is that if you try to have sex with my 14 year old daughter, because you think she is mature enough, I will kill you. Make sense.
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation" - Barack Obama (a freshman senator from Illinios)
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- The Count is in: 31 of 53 teen girls are pregnant