danot Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 The changing views of homosexuality, for example. The changing views of 1. The public, 2. The law, 3. The public in response to the law, 4. The law in response to the public.But you're stripping this issue to it's bare basics in order to make your point. You seem to suggest that the present laws angainst paedophilia count for nothing, as opposed to the free will of a child who agrees to have sex with an adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 But you're stripping this issue to it's bare basics in order to make your point. You seem to suggest that the present laws angainst paedophilia count for nothing, as opposed to the free will of a child who agrees to have sex with an adult. Archbishop Grings, a 73-year-old priest with conservative views, said the gradual acceptance of homosexuality by the public was a precursor to a possible broad acceptance of paedophilia. "When sexuality is banalised it is clear that that can have an effect on all cases. Homosexuality is one case. Before, no one spoke of the homosexual. He was discriminated against," he said. "When we start to say that they [homosexuals] have rights, rights to publicly demonstrate, in a short time paedophilia will also have rights." I said you can see his point, and considering his law comes from a 'Divine' book, and not a government. When you look at the laws set by government, and how they have changed in recent times, compared to the laws of the bible, which remain static. Then surely you can see his point. It's not like you need to take any notice of him, or get wound up about it. It's his opinion of government laws compared to those of a book vs non believers opinion of Biblical laws compared to those of the government. Our laws, do after all change, so his worry is not exactly unexpectable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 [Apart from the OP], this whole thread is almost a play on words... see here.. utter nonsence, he has no idea. 2 consenting adults is nothing in comparison to a vulger adult raping an innocent child What if there was consent? How can you consent to being raped? See? - No. But I will say this, I've seen older adults try to pressure 16 year olds into sex, and quite a few of them 16 year olds I do not think are able to make rational consent. Two 13 year olds having consensual sex with each, fair enough ok. Two 16 " ", ok. Two 18 " ", ok. A 40 year old and a 16 year old, NO! (Even though it is completely legal) I think I can see where you are coming from, but not sure the posts so far make this clear... I've seen the old argument and discussed it before. (a) If two [hetro] 15 years olds are having sex, but the male turns 16 first, and they continue, does that make him a rapist? Does that make it wrong? Conversely (b), if a 40 year old man sleeps with a just turned 16 year old female ... is that wrong? Moral (b) and legal issues (a) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 I said you can see his point, and considering his law comes from a 'Divine' book, and not a government. When you look at the laws set by government, and how they have changed in recent times, compared to the laws of the bible, which remain static. Then surely you can see his point. It's not like you need to take any notice of him, or get wound up about it. It's his opinion of government laws compared to those of a book vs non believers opinion of Biblical laws compared to those of the government. Our laws, do after all change, so his worry is not exactly unexpectable. Yes, that's a fair point. Although the laws on homosexuality were relaxed due to their unfairness. The current laws against paedophilia are not unfair, nor ever likely to be considered so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 If this thread is to remain open please keep the discussion on topic. Watch the language and challenge the post not the poster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
depoix Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Why is it wrong to have sex underage? Because of an arbitrary law? Surely it should be ok if they are consenting? if it needs explaining to you then you need help,and lots of it .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoddyHolder Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 One perversion is illegal and rightly so ,the other perversion is legal and you have to question the why and wherefores of the people who made it legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouFo666 Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 if it needs explaining to you then you need help,and lots of it .. Locking up more like !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 Our laws, do after all change Indeed they do. However, our age of consent laws have steadily increased the age from 12 to it's current age of 16 (with a minor dip to 10 in the 16th century). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*bobcat* Posted May 8, 2010 Share Posted May 8, 2010 if it needs explaining to you then you need help,and lots of it .. His lack of common sence is alarming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.