Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[HumbleThinker]

I wouldn't be surprised at all. If the success of the homosexual movement has proven anything it's that we're apparently not allowed to object to deviant behavior based on moral grounds, so on what basis would you object to lowering the age of consent?

You can object to behavior you deem deviant all you want as long as you are not discriminating against those who practice such a behavior in a manner the law deems illegal. Basing laws solely on morality has generally been a bad idea (ie. Prohibition). There is plenty of scientific reasoning for what the age of consent should, in addition to prevailing cultural norms and moral arguments which for me would likely be similar to yours. Based on just the scientific reasons, the psychology of a child and the psychological power dynamics between an adult and a child in our society makes a child under at least the age of 16, if not 18, incapable of consenting to sexual activity with an adult. If further research shows that this is in error or if how we raise children in our society changes drastically enough to actually equip children under 16 or 18 from consenting to sexual activity with an adult, then this would undermine the scientific reasons for having the age of consent as it is. Yes age is inexact and this isn't some absolute standard that will never change ever, but it's what we have right now and is on the whole better than trying to make law by appeals to some supposedly absolute moral argument.

The lowering of the age of consent is at least conceivable for me as a minute possibility, but completely inconceivable to me would be abolishing the concept of consent altogether. And this is what would need to happen to make pedophilia legal, although it would make rape legal as well.

[Christianbookworm]

I don't see how it could ever be socially acceptable to rape babies and toddlers. If that ever happened, Jesus better come back and deal with it!

[Sparko]

I don't see how it could ever be socially acceptable to rape babies and toddlers. If that ever happened, Jesus better come back and deal with it!

I can see it. They already say you can kill unborn babies because they are not people. And they have been talking about allowing killing of babies after being born because they are not really people either. So what is to stop them from saying it is OK to sexually abuse them because they are not really people?

[Christianbookworm]

I can see it. They already say you can kill unborn babies because they are not people. And they have been talking about allowing killing of babies after being born because they are not really people either. So what is to stop them from saying it is OK to sexually abuse them because they are not really people?

Or baby burgers? Modest Proposal is satire! Not an actual suggestion!I so want Jesus to give them A VERY STERN LECTURE! And time out for eternity. Unless they repent before it's too late. Then, just give them the lecture. You know, the "what you did was bad and hurt others" lecture that we all deserve.

[seer]

I can see it. They already say you can kill unborn babies because they are not people. And they have been talking about allowing killing of babies after being born because they are not really people either. So what is to stop them from saying it is OK to sexually abuse them because they are not really people?

That is exactly right, when you start defining what a human being is by the subjective criterion of personhood you open the door to all manner of evils.

Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...11-100411.full

[Christianbookworm]

And I bet the same people that think it's okay to kill fetuses/newborns would object to God temporarily causing/permitting the deaths of humans. We are not divine, so...

[Jedidiah]

I can see it. They already say you can kill unborn babies because they are not people. And they have been talking about allowing killing of babies after being born because they are not really people either. So what is to stop them from saying it is OK to sexually abuse them because they are not really people?

The human heart is more deceitful than it is anything else. And it is desperately wicked.

[Jedidiah]

That is exactly right, when you start defining what a human being is by the subjective criterion of personhood you open the door to all manner of evils.

In the whole abortion discussion the only use of the concept of personhood is to justify murdering babies. The concept has no other use outside perhaps theology or Bible study.

[Christianbookworm]

The human heart is more deceitful than it is anything else. And it is desperately wicked.

Which is why we all need Jesus of Nazareth.

[Mountain Man]

You can object to behavior you deem deviant all you want as long as you are not discriminating against those who practice such a behavior in a manner the law deems illegal. Basing laws solely on morality has generally been a bad idea (ie. Prohibition). There is plenty of scientific reasoning for what the age of consent should, in addition to prevailing cultural norms and moral arguments which for me would likely be similar to yours. Based on just the scientific reasons, the psychology of a child and the psychological power dynamics between an adult and a child in our society makes a child under at least the age of 16, if not 18, incapable of consenting to sexual activity with an adult. If further research shows that this is in error or if how we raise children in our society changes drastically enough to actually equip children under 16 or 18 from consenting to sexual activity with an adult, then this would undermine the scientific reasons for having the age of consent as it is. Yes age is inexact and this isn't some absolute standard that will never change ever, but it's what we have right now and is on the whole better than trying to make law by appeals to some supposedly absolute moral argument.

The lowering of the age of consent is at least conceivable for me as a minute possibility, but completely inconceivable to me would be abolishing the concept of consent altogether. And this is what would need to happen to make pedophilia legal, although it would make rape legal as well.

There are scientific reasons for objecting to homosexuality, too, but any time it's brought up, we are shouted down as "bigots" and "homophobes".

But beyond that, you're still making a moral argument by implying that it is immoral because a child can't consent. Do you really think pedophiles care about what you think is or is not moral? Furthermore, I'm sure the issue of "consent" can probably be disputed because, first of all, psychology is not a hard science and therefore open to interpretation, and secondly, it's a simple matter of redefining what "consent" means, just like how the latest DSM redefined pedophilia as an "interest" rather than a "disorder". Like the homosexual, the pedophile does not see a moral hurdle, merely a social and legal one, and that hurdle has gotten awfully low thanks to the efforts of the homosexual community.

My whole point here is that once you agree to give up the moral argument, like we were forced to do with the issue of homosexual marriage, then everything becomes permissible, and I have no doubt that pedophiles are eager to follow the trail blazed by the homosexuals.

[The Thinker]

There are scientific reasons for objecting to homosexuality, too, but any time it's brought up, we are shouted down as "bigots" and "homophobes".

But beyond that, you're still making a moral argument by implying that it is immoral because a child can't consent. Do you really think pedophiles care about what you think is or is not moral? Furthermore, I'm sure the issue of "consent" can probably be disputed because, first of all, psychology is not a hard science and therefore open to interpretation, and secondly, it's a simple matter of redefining what "consent" means, just like how the latest DSM redefined pedophilia as an "interest" rather than a "disorder". Like the homosexual, the pedophile does not see a moral hurdle, merely a social and legal one, and that hurdle has gotten awfully low thanks to the efforts of the homosexual community.

My whole point here is that once you agree to give up the moral argument, like we were forced to do with the issue of homosexual marriage, then everything becomes permissible, and I have no doubt that pedophiles are eager to follow the trail blazed by the homosexuals.

I haven't heard any good scientific objections for homosexuality. Care to mention them for us?

Some pedophiles care about what we think is moral and immoral. I'm sure there are many pedophiles that never act on their desires due to what we think about pedophilia. Consent cannot simply be redefined to mean whatever someone wants. A person in a coma cannot consent without prior agreement, no matter how you define consent. Someone mentally incompetent will not be able to consent, in any reasonable fashion. So I don't think pedophilia will be the next thing to be accepted. It is completely different from homosexuality.

[EvoUK]

I'm not actually seeing the correlation between paedophilia and homosexuality. I've read this thread from the beginning, got through the first few pages of understandable outrage and have seen this mentioned in one form of another, but don't get it.

Is this some religious all sins are equal thing?

[Jedidiah]

I haven't heard any good scientific objections for homosexuality. Care to mention them for us?

Either you are quite new here, have not read the many threads on homosexuality, or you are being less than honest. The site abounds with such discussions.

. . . So I don't think pedophilia will be the next thing to be accepted. It is completely different from homosexuality.

Tell me that in ten years and I will probably laugh at you, as pedophilia will be widely accepted in my expectations.

[Jedidiah]

I'm not actually seeing the correlation between paedophilia and homosexuality. I've read this thread from the beginning, got through the first few pages of understandable outrage and have seen this mentioned in one form of another, but don't get it.

Is this some religious all sins are equal thing?

Both homosexuality and pedophilia have long been considered deviant. Today that evaluation has largely been reversed for homosexuality. It seems that the perversion of pedophilia is following suit. Hard to miss the similarity.

[EvoUK]

Must be a right wing thing. I've never seen them related other than on sites like this. But then that's why I visit them, it's fascinating.