Pedophilia - The Next Taboo To Fall?

[Sparko]

Poe's Law! Just as well you told us it was sarcasm, otherwise we wouldn't have known.

Glass houses, Tassy. Glass houses.

[Sparko]

I don't know if orientation is necessarily a choice, but acting on it certainly is.

Lots of behaviors can be traced to some sort of genetic link. Like addiction. It seems to run in families, yet we don't say "well he has an addictive personality so he can't help being an alcoholic who beats his wife and kids and runs over people while drunk" - no we expect people to rise above their dispositions and be responsible for their behaviors, no matter what the "cause" - whether genetic or environmental. So to me the "well it is genetic" is not a valid reason or excuse.

[seer]

Lots of behaviors can be traced to some sort of genetic link. Like addiction. It seems to run in families, yet we don't say "well he has an addictive personality so he can't help being an alcoholic who beats his wife and kids and runs over people while drunk" - no we expect people to rise above their dispositions and be responsible for their behaviors, no matter what the "cause" - whether genetic or environmental. So to me the "well it is genetic" is not a valid reason or excuse.

Exactly, I don't think there is a more evident theological truth than that of original sin.

[Jaecp]

Lots of behaviors can be traced to some sort of genetic link. Like addiction. It seems to run in families, yet we don't say "well he has an addictive personality so he can't help being an alcoholic who beats his wife and kids and runs over people while drunk" - no we expect people to rise above their dispositions and be responsible for their behaviors, no matter what the "cause" - whether genetic or environmental. So to me the "well it is genetic" is not a valid reason or excuse.

Generally speaking, a big point about being born gay is the notion that god must have therefore made them that way. This matters a lot.

Your example is something unequivocally bad though, why? It's not like being gay is bad, even from your perspective, in the way that beating your wife and kids or committing vehicular manslaughter is. That's just ridiculous.

[seer]

Generally speaking, a big point about being born gay is the notion that god must have therefore made them that way. This matters a lot.

No, we do not believe that God made them that way - any more than He created the rapist to rape or the child molester to molest.

[Sparko]

Generally speaking, a big point about being born gay is the notion that god must have therefore made them that way. This matters a lot.

Your example is something unequivocally bad though, why? It's not like being gay is bad, even from your perspective, in the way that beating your wife and kids or committing vehicular manslaughter is. That's just ridiculous.

but from my perspective, acting out on being gay is bad. It is a sin. Having an addictive personality isn't "bad" either, but allowing it control you and become a drug addict or alcoholic is bad.

As to "God did it" - I guess that means that being an axe murderer is fine, if God made them born with an anger issue, right?

We live in a fallen world and we all have "crosses to bear" - some lead to sins we need to fight, others to physical or mental problems we need to overcome. Not all are "bad" but some are. And we can use our willpower and the power of Christ to overcome adverse conditions, or wallow in self-pity, or even convince ourselves that evil is good in order to assuage our guilt. The choice is ours. Because we are not slaves to our genetic dispositions.

[One Bad Pig]

Poe's Law! Just as well you told us it was sarcasm, otherwise we wouldn't have known.

I knew I'd need to point it out in order for you to get it.

[Jaecp]

but from my perspective, acting out on being gay is bad. It is a sin. Having an addictive personality isn't "bad" either, but allowing it control you and become a drug addict or alcoholic is bad.

As to "God did it" - I guess that means that being an axe murderer is fine, if God made them born with an anger issue, right?

We live in a fallen world and we all have "crosses to bear" - some lead to sins we need to fight, others to physical or mental problems we need to overcome. Not all are "bad" but some are. And we can use our willpower and the power of Christ to overcome adverse conditions, or wallow in self-pity, or even convince ourselves that evil is good in order to assuage our guilt. The choice is ours. Because we are not slaves to our genetic dispositions.

No, "God Did It" doesn't absolve the axe murderer. Murder though has a victim. We can understand how it's bad without an appeal to gods. This isn't the case with being gay. Most everything that sucks about being gay in the world has to do with peoples reactions to it and nothing thats implicit to being gay. The reason why "God Did It" matters is because for something that is otherwise benign to have it be a sin as God could have easily created a world without people being born gay in the first place. You could still have the rule against people who are just sexual deviants or whatever without creating huge swathes of people as gay.

(as a tangent, addictive personalities are also huge benefits when focused properly. Psychologists have long noted that the kinds of people who get deeply addicted to drugs have also gotten deeply addicted to work or whatnot. Hendrix was pretty much addicted to that guitar, no? Plenty of other people that burned twice as bright for half as long fall under this category)

As for the fallen stuff, that's a religious prohibition. That's cool for what it's worth, but you know I'm interested in policy and the like and if it can't be argued for in secular terms its got little chance of impacting policy. Still, simply saying that we all have crosses to bear is easy, Sparko; there is a difference between getting angrier slightly more easily than the norm and having a sexual orientation that puts you in the sinner category if you want to interact romantically with the person that, as far as you know, is your soul mate. The general Christian answers to why God would do that are middling at best. At worst? Ehh.

[Sparko]

No, "God Did It" doesn't absolve the axe murderer. Murder though has a victim. We can understand how it's bad without an appeal to gods. This isn't the case with being gay. Most everything that sucks about being gay in the world has to do with peoples reactions to it and nothing thats implicit to being gay. The reason why "God Did It" matters is because for something that is otherwise benign to have it be a sin as God could have easily created a world without people being born gay in the first place. You could still have the rule against people who are just sexual deviants or whatever without creating huge swathes of people as gay.

that is a matter of opinion. I think sinful acts do harm others. Whether it is acting out being gay, or adultery, or whatever. The health risks to gay sex, even lesbians (higher rate of cancer), higher suicide rates, higher cormorbidity with other mental issues, to me make the gay people themselves the victims. You may disagree.

(as a tangent, addictive personalities are also huge benefits when focused properly. Psychologists have long noted that the kinds of people who get deeply addicted to drugs have also gotten deeply addicted to work or whatnot. Hendrix was pretty much addicted to that guitar, no? Plenty of other people that burned twice as bright for half as long fall under this category)

That kind of makes the point I was making in the first place. Genetics doesn't "cause" behaviors, or how they are expressed. They might influence personality traits, but the expressed behaviors are a lot more complicated. So "genes made me this way" is not really an excuse, is it?

As for the fallen stuff, that's a religious prohibition. That's cool for what it's worth, but you know I'm interested in policy and the like and if it can't be argued for in secular terms its got little chance of impacting policy. Still, simply saying that we all have crosses to bear is easy, Sparko; there is a difference between getting angrier slightly more easily than the norm and having a sexual orientation that puts you in the sinner category if you want to interact romantically with the person that, as far as you know, is your soul mate. The general Christian answers to why God would do that are middling at best. At worst? Ehh.

You are the one who brought up God, Jaecp. Now you complain "that's a religious prohibition" and you are not interested in it? Fine.

[The Thinker]

Where did Terraceth use the word "choice"?

I think the "choosing to be gay" thing is a strawman version of what most conservative Christians believe. I heavily doubt anybody here is maintaining that people woke up one day and said, "You know what? I think I want to be attracted to men for the rest of my life."

I would hope not. Some conservative Christians actually believe that, though I hope no one on this site.

[Sparko]

The American Psychiatric Association fired the first shot across the bow several years ago when they classified sexual attraction to children as merely an "atypical sexual interest" rather than a disorder. According to the latest edition of DSM, it's only a disorder if the feelings are unwanted or cause distress in the individual, although the APA pays lip service to the fact that pedophilia is still illegal.

So the camel already has his nose under the tent. I've said for a while that the next big social movement is going to revolve around pedophiles following the trail blazed by homosexuals, and that those who supported homosexuality are going to face a very uncomfortable dilemma when they see the exact same arguments used to defend homosexuality re-purposed to defend pedophilia: so do they hypocritically object to pedophilia, or do they swallow their disgust and support it?

right but who cares because pedophilia is just a cultural thing and not inherently immoral, right?

[Mountain Man]

right but who cares because pedophilia is just a cultural thing and not inherently immoral, right?

Is that really an argument you wish to defend?

I would say that the vast majority of people we regard as children in our society are not capable of giving informed consent and could only agree to do certain things if they were coerced and manipulated by someone which would make it an immoral act. A young teen might theoretically be capable of giving informed consent, but I think you'd have a hell of a time proving it.

But of course pedophiles don't give a crap about the moral argument because they only have to win the legal battle.

[Sparko]

Is that really an argument you wish to defend?

Defend? I am pointing out YOUR hypocrisy from the other thread since that is what you were proposing. That it is not inherently immoral, it is just based on culture. I told you your argument would come back to bite you on your rear. You are condemning pedophilia and mocking how society is probably going to make it legit the way it is going. and claiming it is something that would be immoral, yet in the other thread you were arguing that stuff like marrying 13 and 14 years old was just a cultural thing and while we might not approve, it is not inherently immoral.

If anyone should defend it, it is YOU.

I would say that the vast majority of people we regard as children in our society are not capable of giving informed consent and could only agree to do certain things if they were coerced and manipulated by someone which would make it an immoral act. A young teen might theoretically be capable of giving informed consent, but I think you'd have a hell of a time proving it.

But of course pedophiles don't give a crap about the moral argument because they only have to win the legal battle.

Gee now you sound like JimL and starlight who keep arguing it all boils down to "informed consent" which is why having sex with beasts is immoral. Bad argument.

Just admit the only reason you are arguing such nonsense as 14 year olds dating or marrying 30 year olds is because you are completely biased and will defend Moore simply because he is a conservative.

[Mountain Man]

Defend? I am pointing out YOUR hypocrisy from the other thread since that is what you were proposing. That it is not inherently immoral, it is just based on culture. I told you your argument would come back to bite you on your rear. You are condemning pedophilia and mocking how society is probably going to make it legit the way it is going. and claiming it is something that would be immoral, yet in the other thread you were arguing that stuff like marrying 13 and 14 years old was just a cultural thing and while we might not approve, it is not inherently immoral.

If anyone should defend it, it is YOU.


Gee now you sound like JimL and starlight who keep arguing it all boils down to "informed consent" which is why having sex with beasts is immoral. Bad argument.

Just admit the only reason you are arguing such nonsense as 14 year olds dating or marrying 30 year olds is because you are completely biased and will defend Moore simply because he is a conservative.

You're building a straw man on a foundation of false equivocation. I never defended pedophilia in any way, shape, or form. What I did say is that an older man dating and marrying a young woman is not inherently immoral, but I never once defended the exploitation of children.

But I will ask again, if it's inherently immoral, as you say, then why didn't God command the nation of Israel to abandon its marriage traditions in which it was permissible for a man in his mid-20s to marry a 14-year old? And why did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 7:36 that a man does not sin if he marries when his betrothed has passed "the flower of her age" which the majority of commentaries I've found say is a reference to puberty? Why would the Word of God allow any of this if, as you say, it is inherently immoral?

You say that basing an argument solely on the idea of "consent" is a bad argument, and I agree, but it's not the argument I'm making. The whole idea of "consent", as argued by Dimbulb and Jimmy and other godless heathens, is that two people who are able to consent should be allowed to do whatever they want, and therefore, homosexuality is permissible; but that defense doesn't hold water on moral grounds because God declared homosexuality to be immoral, so whether or not two people consent to a homosexual act is wholly irrelevant, because consent doesn't magically make an immoral act a moral one. Same with a man and woman having extramarital sex. Consent doesn't make it right. However, there are things that are moral with consent but immoral without it; for instance, someone could consent to enter my home, but it would be immoral to force them into my home without their consent. Marriage would be another example. Which is to say that it is not inherently immoral for a young woman -- or any woman for that matter -- to consent to date or marry an older man, assuming she was emotionally capable of making an informed decision, and the man was not manipulating or coercing her to do something against her will. In other words, it's not that consent, in this instance, is transforming an immoral act into a moral one -- which is the argument used in favor of homosexuality -- but rather the act itself is moral in and of itself, and it is therefore permissible for two people to consent to it.

I will confess that I probably would have never studied this matter if it wasn't for Moore, but I will also confess that what I have discovered through my study is somewhat surprising to me simply because I never realized how young (by our standards) Jewish women in ancient times really were when they got married.

[Sparko]

You're building a straw man on a foundation of false equivocation. I never defended pedophilia in any way, shape, or form. What I did say is that an older man dating and marrying a young woman is not inherently immoral, but I never once defended the exploitation of children.

But I will ask again, if it's inherently immoral, as you say, then why didn't God command the nation of Israel to abandon its marriage traditions in which it was permissible for a man in his mid-20s to marry a 14-year old? And why did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 7:36 that a man does not sin if he marries when his betrothed has passed "the flower of her age" which the majority of commentaries I've found say is a reference to puberty? Why would the Word of God allow any of this if, as you say, it is inherently immoral?

You say that basing an argument solely on the idea of "consent" is a bad argument, and I agree, but it's not the argument I'm making. The whole idea of "consent", as argued by Dimbulb and Jimmy and other godless heathens, is that two people who are able to consent should be allowed to do whatever they want, and therefore, homosexuality is permissible; but that defense doesn't hold water on moral grounds because God declared homosexuality to be immoral, so whether or not two people consent to a homosexual act is wholly irrelevant, because consent doesn't magically make an immoral act a moral one. Same with a man and woman having extramarital sex. Consent doesn't make it right. However, there are things that are moral with consent but immoral without it; for instance, someone could consent to enter my home, but it would be immoral to force them into my home without their consent. Marriage would be another example. Which is to say that it is not inherently immoral for a young woman -- or any woman for that matter -- to consent to date or marry an older man, assuming she was emotionally capable of making an informed decision, and the man was not manipulating or coercing her to do something against her will. In other words, it's not that consent, in this instance, is transforming an immoral act into a moral one -- which is the argument used in favor of homosexuality -- but rather the act itself is moral in and of itself, and it is therefore permissible for two people to consent to it.

I will confess that I probably would have never studied this matter if it wasn't for Moore, but I will also confess that what I have discovered through my study is somewhat surprising to me simply because I never realized how young (by our standards) Jewish women in ancient times really were when they got married.

well there you go defending it again.

It is not just about marriage. It is also about an older person taking advantage of someone with no experience. It would be the same if a 30 year old took advantage of a mentally disabled person. That is immoral isn't it? Yet I don't see anything about that in the bible.



You have absolutely no credibility in denouncing pedophilia at this point MM. You are using the same argument that JIML and Co. use: that it is only about "consent" and culture.