Roy Moore accused of sexual contact with 14-year old

[Mountain Man]

so pedophilia is just a cultural thing then. I will remember this thread the next time I hear you whining about NAMBLA.

All this tells me is that you really haven't understood my argument.

[Sparko]

There are a lot of reasons we could condemn it as immoral, the two biggest being that it's against the law, and I don't believe a 12- or 13-year old is necessarily emotionally or mentally mature enough to give informed consent. Some might be, but I think the exceptions would be so rare that they're really not worth considering.

So when they change the law and make pedophilia legal like they did gay marriage then you won't have a moral leg to stand on will you? and here we go with "emotional maturity" again. Make up your mind. I don't think a 16 year old is emotionally mature enough to date a 30 year old.

[Psychic Missile]

Do you have a particular rapist in mind? OR is this just a dumb hypothetical?

Just a hypothetical.

I get it - you're feeling remorse for having voted for Bill Clinton, yes?

I did not vote for Bill Clinton.

[Mountain Man]

So when they change the law and make pedophilia legal like they did gay marriage then you won't have a moral leg to stand on will you?

Why not? Our positions are more closely aligned here than I think you realize.

I don't think a 16 year old is emotionally mature enough to date a 30 year old.

I would say, "It depends." Most probably won't be, but some might be. In Moore's case, the family's of the young women he dated obviously felt they were emotionally mature enough for the relationship (assuming he didn't find parents who just didn't give a crap, which is a possibility I hadn't considered).

But the question is, is it inherently immoral, and it quite obviously isn't simply based on the fact that God didn't command the people of Israel to abandon their marriage traditions.

[Obsidian]

So the next time we discuss a pedophile having sex with a 12 or 13 year old and he claims it was "love" -- what excuse are you going to use to condemn his actions as immoral?

Pedophiles, pretty much by definition, don't marry their victims. And regardless of whether God would or would not condone marriage that young, I don't think marriage that young is allowed anywhere in the United States, anyway. So it's kind of a silly question.

[Psychic Missile]

But the question is, is it inherently immoral, and it quite obviously isn't simply based on the fact that God didn't command the people of Israel to abandon their marriage traditions.

Do you think slavery is immoral? I'm not interested in discussing the topic, I just want to know your answer.

[Mountain Man]

Do you think slavery is immoral? I'm not interested in discussing the topic, I just want to know your answer.

It depends on what you mean by "slavery". Voluntary indentured servitude is not immoral. Chattel slavery is.

[Cerebrum123]

I don't think the , and emoticons are enough to express my disgust of all the stuff rogue06 pointed out in response to me earlier. Do we have anything more powerful than those?

[guacamole]

1 Corinthians 7:38
But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age [probably refers to puberty], and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

I'm not sure what you're responding to. Neither of those are commands that one must be married.

Besides, you are flipping the script. We're not commanded to abstain from everything where God is silent. We're commanding to abstain from doing things that he actually prohibits.

I never argued anything of the sort. I'm saying if you want to argue that Moore is right because of what is permitted by an ancient culture, then I'm arguing that Moore is wrong by the complete standards of that same culture.

In any case, if you are arguing additionally that the only things prohibited are those things actually prohibited literally by Scripture, then I'd say that you need to understand that neither the Law nor the moral proclamations of Jesus and the Apostles are the sum total of ethics and morality--that is, there are more specific sinful actions than those represented by discrete commandments in Scripture.

I don't base my judgments on "the ancient Jewish model." I base my judgments on God's law.

You're arguing from the inference that what isn't specifically prohibited is permitted--that isn't necessarily logical.

She's alleging that he touched her breasts -- nothing particularly shameful about making such an accusation -- and that he TRIED to rape her.

Correct. That falls under the legal definition of sexual assault.

fwiw,
guac.

[Teallaura]

One difference would be that in a Senate hearing, Moore would not be entitled to cross-examine the lady. If you're familiar with how Senate hearings work, it's basically just a time to make speeches. The Senators can ask questions, but it's a good bit different from a real trial. And there aren't even any rules of evidence.

Um, so? What does that have to do with my pointing out it's a Senate hearing and not a judicial one as Sparky initially thought?

[Teallaura]

One of the accusations is assault. I'm not sure if it's true or not. If it's true, then I believe that, given the likely recidivism of sexually-violent criminals, given the fact that he hasn't come clean on his sins and dealt with them through the church, then it's inappropriate for him to to be holding a leadership position, especially not with the label "Christian" on his sleeve. I mean, we don't know if he's repented or not--he still denying that any of the accusations are true, even the statement from former colleagues about his allegedly known proclivity to chase teenagers.

No, I'm asking who has been claiming that sexual assault is OKAY - which was what you stated.

You do understand that the alleged event occurred 38 YEARS ago, right? The absence of any allegations of similar activity (or even of approaching younger women) subsequent to his marriage is strong evidence against any recidivism - and brings the allegation into significant question.

[Cow Poke]

Just a hypothetical.

You'll please excuse me if I think your intentions are less than honorable.

[Teallaura]

Maybe I'm not understanding the argument. You're basing the morality of this subject on Mary and Joseph in the 1st century, correct? Not on any particular Biblical mandate. But the morality of early marriage and consummation of that marriage in the 1st century was contingent on a number of factors that don't exist in the 20th/21st century United States, including standard life expectancies, and the need to propagate one's family name. Again, not only was Mary and Joseph's age gap probably not so wide, but you're attempting to overlay our culture on top of their culture, and then you're saying "it's not inherently immoral". I'm not sure that's really appropriate. At least, it doesn't seem so to me.

Okay, I don't think it's a strong argument but he's not really doing a 'cultural overlay' in that respect. The basic position is that if it wasn't immoral for Mary and Joseph, it's not immoral now. Morality doesn't change although, ironically enough, morays can. What's acceptable to one culture is not to another - but morality isn't at issue, ethics are.

I think he's correct that it's not inherently immoral. I think it's irrelevant to the question of morality that Mary and Joseph weren't presumably of modern age of consent but I do agree that it supports the position he's taking.

I think the age gap is too large to be acceptable in modern culture. However, I find the parental approval to be mitigating.

But mostly, what can be corroborated (not proven - no one's done that yet) happened 38 years ago with no allegations of recurrence so I don't see any cause to invalidate the man's ability to serve.

[Obsidian]

I'm not sure what you're responding to. Neither of those are commands that one must be married.

One of them says that marital sex is honorable. The other says (or at least implies) that it is okay to mary a post-pubescent girl. Can you not read?

In any case, if you are arguing additionally that the only things prohibited are those things actually prohibited literally by Scripture, then I'd say that you need to understand that neither the Law nor the moral proclamations of Jesus and the Apostles are the sum total of ethics and morality--that is, there are more specific sinful actions than those represented by discrete commandments in Scripture.

No. You are the one who fails to understand.

Ecclesiastes 12:13
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

Deuteronomy 4:2
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

[Obsidian]

Um, so?

The point is that he would have to be an idiot to take her up on her offer of a Senate hearing.