NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, in most of organized religion's history, the age of consent was set "at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven"*. And according to wiki** "It should be noted that no major religion actually says it is wrong for someone over 18 to have sex with someone under 18, although some say that it is wrong for a man to have sex with a child."

So I wonder if those traditional family supporters and religious fundies also support lowering the age of consent or if they are ok with modern age of consent laws, isnt that not "traditional"? Do you guys think this is a relevant point in traditional family, gay marriage, etc debate??

* http://www.haworthpress.com/store/ArticleAbstract.asp?ID=87429
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent#Religious_basis

Sounds a lot like "A handmaid's tale"... religious fundamentalism is scary stuff if you ask me.

Do you guys think this is a relevant point in traditional family, gay marriage, etc debate??

Pointing out that the "traditional" marriage the fundies like to yell they are defending is in fact quite disgusting ? And that "tradition" has been adjusted to new insights quite a few times throughout history ?

Nah. That is irrelevant cause people will never listen.

One might also note that at no time did "consent" mean that the girl (and, frequently, the boy) had any right to "consent." The consent came from the parents, specifically the father and this so-called "traditional marriage" was really a traditional business deal.

IIRC, the minimum age of marriage (with parental consent) is/was 12 in Utah, and remains 14 in some states.

I'll also note that in some "traditional" areas, it's not the least bit unusual to see high school girls dating men.

One might also note that at no time did "consent" mean that the girl (and, frequently, the boy) had any right to "consent." The consent came from the parents, specifically the father and this so-called "traditional marriage" was really a traditional business deal.

Well, the idea of girls being some sort of property of their fathers seems alive and well.... http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2007/01/purity-balls

Randy Wilson’s 19-year-old, Khrystian, is typical: She works at her church, spends most weekends at home with her family and has never danced with a male other than her father or brother. Emily Smith, an 18-year-old I meet, says that even kissing is out for her.
Never danced with a male other than her father or brother? Poor girl!

Well, the idea of girls being some sort of property of their fathers seems alive and well.... http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2007/01/purity-balls
Reading that was really quite depressing :(

Encouraging girls to avoid sleeping around is, without a doubt, a good thing.

Without a doubt? Really? I have doubts.

In virtually all circumstances, tradition is overrated.

Well, in most of organized religion's history, the age of consent was set "at 12 or 14 but continued to set the absolute minimum at seven". "Age of consent" seems to imply that they could freely have sex from that point on; yet I'm fairly sure that according to most organized religions they had to be married first. And for most of humanity's history people didn't get married until the man could provide for his wife(-to-be), which, with the exception of aristocracy, was mostly twenty-something (or so I've heard).
While that in no way detracts from whatever truth there is in your statement (I haven't looked into it), I'm not at all sure how relevant it is.

Do you guys think this is a relevant point in traditional family, gay marriage, etc debate??No. It suggests there is some rationality in arguments from tradition; while in reality they just pick the things they like and ignore the things they don't like. That's tradition, you see.

Without a doubt? Really? I have doubts.

You, too? America has this thing with sex - women who have it before marriage are sluts or whores and deserve nothing but scorn. Men who have sex before marriage are studs who are proving their virility. Double standard much?

Well, the idea of girls being some sort of property of their fathers seems alive and well.... http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2007/01/purity-balls

Yes. In the US. Let's keep it there.

I really don't get what the big deal about having sex is.

Well, I do. It's a rite of passage for millions of young people. But I wonder why it's such a cornerstone in our society and why virginity (ie why it's a bad thing if you're a dude, and why it's a good thing if you're a gal) is lampooned so much.
Is it really that much of a big deal?

As much as the fundies would like to think, the terms traditional marriage and traditional family have no meaning anymore. Not with all the high divorce rates, abusive marriages, premarital doodily and childless couples in the country.

This was happening long before they decided that same-sex marriage was a threat to their beloved traditional marriage so I'm surprised they haven't tried to ban them as well.

In virtually all circumstances, tradition is overrated.

"Because we've always done it that way" always struck me as a good reason to try it another way. :)

So I wonder if those traditional family supporters and religious fundies also support lowering the age of consent or if they are ok with modern age of consent laws, isnt that not "traditional"? Do you guys think this is a relevant point in traditional family, gay marriage, etc debate??

See, this is what is known as 'begging the question' or 'baiting your opponent.' It's typically done by someone who is not so much interested in a discussion, or is actually seeking knowledge, as they are in just looking for a argument or a opportunity to make snide comments. See also:'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

See, this is what is known as 'begging the question' or 'baiting your opponent.' It's typically done by someone who is not so much interested in a discussion, or is actually seeking knowledge, as they are in just looking for a argument or a opportunity to make snide comments. See also:'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
QFT. Unless you HAVE something from someone stating that for religious reasons, the age of consent should be lowered, I don't see the point of this thread beyond a nice back pat* of "See how superior we are?".

*There is of course another phrase for this, but I'm trying to be nice.

See, this is what is known as 'begging the question' or 'baiting your opponent.' It's typically done by someone who is not so much interested in a discussion, or is actually seeking knowledge, as they are in just looking for a argument or a opportunity to make snide comments. See also:'Have you stopped beating your wife?'

The point of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of the religious whose arguement against things like gay marriage is "protecting the traditional family".


But I must say, we hardly need more evidence of the hypocrsy of the religious.

QFT. Unless you HAVE something from someone stating that for religious reasons, the age of consent should be lowered, I don't see the point of this thread beyond a nice back pat* of "See how superior we are?".

*There is of course another phrase for this, but I'm trying to be nice.

That is exactly the point of this thread.

That is exactly the point of this thread.

No its not, but I understand why some of you are getting defensive.


Like I said. It is to point out the hypocrisy of the "traditional family" arguement.

No its not, but I understand why some of you are getting defensive.


Like I said. It is to point out the hypocrisy of the "traditional family" arguement.

To some that is the same thing KoL...

"Age of consent" seems to imply that they could freely have sex from that point on;

Indeed. The term the OPer was looking was "marriageable age". Age of consent is strictly to do with sex.

From the OPer's own source:
While the phrase age of consent typically does not appear in legal statutes,[1] when used with in relation to sexual activity, the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent of consenting to sexual acts. This should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, or the marriageable age.

According to the marriageable age wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age), It's set at 18 for much of the world (yes, including Utah), with special provisions for 16. A few countries (Sudan, Kuwait, and Iran) set it at 9 for females. Ethiopia is noted as de facto 6 for females. :eek2:

Nation of Quebec;14190658']As much as the fundies would like to think, the terms traditional marriage and traditional family have no meaning anymore. Not with all the high divorce rates, abusive marriages, premarital doodily and childless couples in the country.

This was happening long before they decided that same-sex marriage was a threat to their beloved traditional marriage so I'm surprised they haven't tried to ban them as well.

Abusive marriages were always there. It's just that people had to live with it and torture themselves because divorce wasnt an option. Traditional family.

No its not, but I understand why some of you are getting defensive.


Like I said. It is to point out the hypocrisy of the "traditional family" arguement.

Who said anything about getting defensive, it seems you are getting defensive because people on here can see through this thread's little ploy and don't think very much of people who go around patting themselves on the back because they think they have it all figured out.

No its not, but I understand why some of you are getting defensive.


Like I said. It is to point out the hypocrisy of the "traditional family" arguement.
Uh, no. No it doesn't. It does NOT follow that because you are against gay marriage you SHOULD be for some lolicon action. It's a stretch that makes no sense. It would be as bad an argument that shows up in the evolution vs creation debate where someone claims that because you support evolution, you therefore should be for eugenics and because you're not, you are exposed as a hypocrite.

Uh, no. No it doesn't. It does NOT follow that because you are against gay marriage you SHOULD be for some lolicon action. It's a stretch that makes no sense. It would be as bad an argument that shows up in the evolution vs creation debate where someone claims that because you support evolution, you therefore should be for eugenics and because you're not, you are exposed as a hypocrite.

No. Actually you did not understand. There is a difference between the "slippery slope" fallacy that you are talking about and expecting consistency.

Many anti-equal rights (ie: anti gay marriage) people base their opposition on religious grounds. And religions are based on their books.

So if their idea of traditional family is based on those books, why are they selective of the criteria in those books? I dunno how reputable this source is but:


There is no age of consent in the Bible, there is a state of consent, and it is called marriage. Parents in the ancient world safeguarded their children -especially their daughters - until they were ready to marry. The Government was not involved, and set no 'age of consent'. It was up to the families at what age their children got married. But until they were married, they kept their virginity.

http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Articles/Dinah.html


So, I was wondering if some of them would also want age of consent to be lowered (or abolished). Because thats how it used to be. It's the traditional way.


Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in western countries during the mid-19th century,[1] 15 to 18 had become the norm in many countries by the end of the 20th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent#History


Also, will these people try to ban divorce?


In Roman Catholicism, the Church teaches that marriage is God's doing: "God himself is the author of marriage," which is his way of showing love for those he created. Because a marriage is a divine institution it can never be broken, even if the partners are legally divorced: as long as they are both alive, the Church considers them bound together by God.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_of_marriage#View_of_Roman_Catholic_Church

Again, there is no slippery slope here. I'm not saying all anti-equal rights / anti-gay marriage people should support these in order not to be hypocritical.
However, those whose religous beliefs dictate their views, why are they ok with divorce and age of consent laws and not gay marriage? Why are they not consitent with their religious texts?

Who said anything about getting defensive, it seems you are getting defensive because people on here can see through this thread's little ploy and don't think very much of people who go around patting themselves on the back because they think they have it all figured out.

I dont think I have it all figured it out or pat myself on the back or whatever.

Again, there is no slippery slope here. I'm not saying all anti-equal rights / anti-gay marriage people should support these in order not to be hypocritical.
However, those whose religous beliefs dictate their views, why are they ok with divorce and age of consent laws and not gay marriage? Why are they not consitent with their religious texts?
You are still overreaching it. Your own source notes that age of consent appears NOWHERE in the Bible. You end up with two separate concepts that have nothing to do with each other. The age of consent is about the age of which to begin sexual relations, the ONLY bit in the Bible about that is that a person must be married BEFORE they begin to have sex, what age that is just is not mentioned. So, yes, you are making a Non Sequitur fallacy because believing that people have to be married before starting sexual relations does not mean that those who believe that must therefore also advocate the abolition of the age of consent.

It is the exact same argument that some homophobes use against homosexuals. The argument usually runs that since gays feel that love between two individuals is not wrong, regardless of sex, what they really want is to abolish the age of consent and make pedophilia legal (AKA the MBLA argument). Part one is not connecting to part two, no matter how many times you try to twist it that way.

As for divorce, it should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church is not the whole of Christianity.

Well, the idea of girls being some sort of property of their fathers seems alive and well.... http://www.glamour.com/sex-love-life/2007/01/purity-balls

Girls pledging their virginities to their fathers? Let's face it, that sounds a whole lot incestuous.

Girls pledging their virginities to their fathers? Let's face it, that sounds a whole lot incestuous.
I was enjoying that it was a Pastor Randy who was doing the asking. :p

I was enjoying that it was a Pastor Randy who was doing the asking. :p

I'll make the same complaint I made about certain movies such as Ella Enchanted. Can we not please do the knock-off porno industry's work for them?

It is the exact same argument that some homophones use against homosexuals.
Damn homophones, using their similar-sounding yet differently-written arguments against the poor, defenseless homosexuals!

Damn them and all their different meanings to hell! :mad:

Damn homophones, using their similar-sounding yet differently-written arguments against the poor, defenseless homosexuals!

Damn them and all their different meanings to hell! :mad:

On the other hand, Homophone nowadays sounds like a GLBT cellular network service, including a Faaab Five Plan.

Damn homophones, using their similar-sounding yet differently-written arguments against the poor, defenseless homosexuals!

Damn them and all their different meanings to hell! :mad:
This is what happens when you use spell check and forget to check the check that the spell check checked. :tongue:

This is what happens when you use spell check and forget to check the check that the spell check checked. :tongue:

Trying saying that 5 times fast :D

This is what happens when you use spell check and forget to check the check that the spell check checked. :tongue:
Yeah, couldn't resist pulling your leg about it. Such a funny mistake to overlook.

But back at the topic: age of consent being over 18 is stupid. People have been fucking before 18 since the dawn of man. People usually start fucking when they reach puberty. Puberty starts usually anywhere between 12 to 14, maybe even sooner nowadays, or so I'm told.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the kids from being pursued by pervy old men in their forties and up, but why the hell do some states think that criminalizing two teenagers in the range of 15-16 years old just because they've been getting frisky with each other is a good idea? It's not a good idea; it's stupid, backwards, and retarded. And ends up getting kids into judicial trouble for nothing, gets them on file on some stupid sex offender list and whatnot, and screws their life to hell.

Two 16 year old teens getting frisky does not warrant a criminal file.

You are still overreaching it. Your own source notes that age of consent appears NOWHERE in the Bible.

But it IS "traditional". And since the fundies are very careful to avoid saying they only want Biblical marriage to be allowed but speak of "tradition" we should be free to point out what tradition actually is.

But, as said, it doesn't matter. The opposition does not wish to preserve values or tradition, but to restrict marriages to what they have cherrypicked and made up to suit them.

Yeah, couldn't resist pulling your leg about it. Such a funny mistake to overlook.
Believe you, me, I was hitting myself upside the head for overlooking it as well. I'm a piss poor speller, but I'm also an English teacher and I'm supposed to catch those! :$

But back at the topic: age of consent being over 18 is stupid. People have been fucking before 18 since the dawn of man. People usually start fucking when they reach puberty. Puberty starts usually anywhere between 12 to 14, maybe even sooner nowadays, or so I'm told.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting the kids from being pursued by pervy old men in their forties and up, but why the hell do some states think that criminalizing two teenagers in the range of 15-16 years old just because they've been getting frisky with each other is a good idea? It's not a good idea; it's stupid, backwards, and retarded. And ends up getting kids into judicial trouble for nothing, gets them on file on some stupid sex offender list and whatnot, and screws their life to hell.

Two 16 year old teens getting frisky does not warrant a criminal file.
Very much agreed. Sadly that's not the topic of the thread, but I do agree with you.

But it IS "traditional". And since the fundies are very careful to avoid saying they only want Biblical marriage to be allowed but speak of "tradition" we should be free to point out what tradition actually is.

But, as said, it doesn't matter. The opposition does not wish to preserve values or tradition, but to restrict marriages to what they have cherrypicked and made up to suit them.
It's still a stupid argument to make though. It doesn't actually point out any hypocrisy on the part of those against gay marriage for religious reasons because nowhere in the religious texts does it say you should be getting it on with children.

Believe you, me, I was hitting myself upside the head for overlooking it as well. I'm a piss poor speller, but I'm also an English teacher and I'm supposed to catch those! :$


Very much agreed. Sadly that's not the topic of the thread, but I do agree with you.


It's still a stupid argument to make though. It doesn't actually point out any hypocrisy on the part of those against gay marriage for religious reasons because nowhere in the religious texts does it say you should be getting it on with children.

As I understand the Bible, nowhere does it say that same sex marriage is not permitted. What it does say in one vague throwaway statement is something about men lying with men not being good in some context.

The only thing I got about pervy old men and kids is some prophet siccing a bunch of bears on some kids because they teased him about being bald - kind of overkill if you ask me.

The tradition about "age of consent" actually started kind of late - some time in the late nineteenth century. Before that it was figured that if the girl was old enough to get pregnant, she was old enough to marry and if the boy was old enough to earn a living, he was old enough to marry.

If you read the Bible you'll see a lot of references to unmarried people getting together with no particular consequences. Ruth seduced Boaz before they married. No one was scandalized about Mary getting pregnant while she and Joseph were still engaged, before they actually got married (I think Mary was 13 at the time and Joseph was supposed to be in his late 20s).

The Bible is forced to mean a lot of things by people who want to prove a point that doesn't exist.

Just to make a real quick point here, and not addressed at you in particular, ASD, I am NOT arguing that the Bible forbids homosexual marriage or that homosexual marriage is somehow wrong. I AM stating that the op is really stretching it for an argument and it's a silly argument to use anyway.

As I understand the Bible, nowhere does it say that same sex marriage is not permitted. What it does say in one vague throwaway statement is something about men lying with men not being good in some context.
Well, two statements, depending on translation and/or POV. :tongue:

The only thing I got about pervy old men and kids is some prophet siccing a bunch of bears on some kids because they teased him about being bald - kind of overkill if you ask me.
Them bald men are ornery cusses, yup.

The tradition about "age of consent" actually started kind of late - some time in the late nineteenth century. Before that it was figured that if the girl was old enough to get pregnant, she was old enough to marry and if the boy was old enough to earn a living, he was old enough to marry.
Depended a great deal on the situation though. We do have royalty marrying while infants.

In some cultures, the marriage took place AFTER the guy managed to, ahem, get proof of a working model.

If you read the Bible you'll see a lot of references to unmarried people getting together with no particular consequences. Ruth seduced Boaz before they married. No one was scandalized about Mary getting pregnant while she and Joseph were still engaged, before they actually got married (I think Mary was 13 at the time and Joseph was supposed to be in his late 20s).
For Mary and Joseph, the story is a bit different. Joseph meant to quietly divorce Mary as to keep her from shame, but after getting a visit from an angel, took her to wife. Pretty much they pretended that Jesus was his, which would have been in accordance with Hebrew laws (I.e. if you slept with a virgin and got her pregnant, you were either supposed to marry her on the spot OR pay her value in a bridal fee if her father wouldn't let her marry). It would have been assumed by the community that Joseph snuck out one night, and well... you know what I mean? Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. As for age... who knows.

The Bible is forced to mean a lot of things by people who want to prove a point that doesn't exist.
Yes, indeed it can and has and will probably always will be.

The Age of Consent is sacred.

Glory be unto the Age of Consent, and unto the Government that is it prophet.

It is irrelevant that in the past people like Jefferson or Admiral Farragut started their careers at 17 or earlier. That is in THE PAST. DO NOT BRING UP HISTORY.

THE AGE OF CONSENT IS SACRED.

IF YOU DOUBT IT IN ANY WAY YOU ARE AN EVIL PEDOPHILE.

No, no. Don't be silly. 'Tradition' always means going back to the 1940s or 1950s, the peak of human society before the ebil liberals ruined everything. It almost never means going back any further before that, unless you happen to be Amish.

QFT. Unless you HAVE something from someone stating that for religious reasons, the age of consent should be lowered, I don't see the point of this thread beyond a nice back pat* of "See how superior we are?".

*There is of course another phrase for this, but I'm trying to be nice.

Well, yes and no.
You've got people pointing to the bible claiming that the traditional family needs to be preserved, without also rallying for the re-introduction of the good old tradition of the man of the house being allowed to shag every single female employee.... not to mention being allowed to sell the kids off to whoever he pleased.

It's a bit two-faced, dragging that book out anytime it says something the particular fundie agrees with, but mumbling something about "having to read things in context" and "not always taking everything literally" when it's something he/she disagrees with.

Well, yes and no.
You've got people pointing to the bible claiming that the traditional family needs to be preserved, without also rallying for the re-introduction of the good old tradition of the man of the house being allowed to shag every single female employee.... not to mention being allowed to sell the kids off to whoever he pleased.

It's a bit two-faced, dragging that book out anytime it says something the particular fundie agrees with, but mumbling something about "having to read things in context" and "not always taking everything literally" when it's something he/she disagrees with.
True, but unless there's some part of the Bible I've missed that says there should be no age of consent...

See my point? There's enough holes the their arguments without having to use something that is false or misleading.

Leave that to THEIR side.

True, but unless there's some part of the Bible I've missed that says there should be no age of consent...

See my point? There's enough holes the their arguments without having to use something that is false or misleading.

Leave that to THEIR side.

True, but there isn't anything either explicitly forbidding gays to get married, is there? It's all deducted from other things the bible does say.
And it does frequently mention girls getting married at rather young ages, although I'll have to go and look up the numbers somewhere.
And as for the two topics I mentioned, about selling off daughters and being perfectly ok with shagging the servants, that is stated quite explicitly. Not much room for interpretation there.

As I understand things, the main argument against kids engaging in sexual activity, either with age mates or older partners, is that a child's brain isn't fully physically developed, rendering them unable to consent.

"They don't understand all the in's and out's of an adult sexual relationship," they say.

So let's put aside for the moment that most adults don't either, and the fact that we're not talking about an adult sexual relationship, but rather a child (meaning for this argument, under 18) sexual relationship, or perhaps a child/adult relationship, which have their own unique set of circumstances. (And no, I'm not advocating sex between a 10 year old and a 40 year old, however I don't necessarily see anything wrong between a 16 year old and a 25. Insert your own ages as you see fit.)

So those arguments aside, let's concentrate on the whole 'undeveloped brain' theory the experts quote. Point of fact, it's true. The average human's brain doesn't reach full physical maturity until the age of 24.

Now, whether or not the brain's physical maturity is actually a factor in such decision making aside, shouldn't we at least question the basic fact that these so-called professionals seem to have no issues whatsoever with 2 21 years olds screwing each other? Or 18 year olds for that matter.

If the brain's physical maturity is important enough to guide public policy (and I'm not saying that this is the reason we have an AoC of 18 in many places, but rather that it's one of the main arguments used against lowering such) then why aren't the AoC laws being raised to 24? If you're incapable of making a rational decision to engage in a sexual relationship when you're 15 because of the physical immaturity of your brain, what makes you anymore equipped to make such a decision at 18, or 21, or 23?

And what about other countries? Spain's AoC is 13 I believe. Are we supposed to believe that Spain is the Arkansas of Europe, filled with the equivalent of hillbillies who simply don't know any better? Or perhaps they recognize, as other people in this thread have mentioned, that people like to screw, and that they will usually learn to screw as soon as their body starts sending out those signals, usually at puberty. Further, that nothing any legislature can do is going to change that fact.

Take a look at the news. Do a little research. See just how many young people are being placed on sex offender registries (and having their lives ruined in the process) just for screwing each other. Then ask yourself if perhaps we haven't just gone over the deep end.

When your policy to protect children begins to target the very people you're aiming to protect, perhaps it's time to rethink the policy.

True, but there isn't anything either explicitly forbidding gays to get married, is there? It's all deducted from other things the bible does say.
The Bible (possibly, I personally think it's a translation error) condemns homosexuality as a sin. A lot of the objections to homosexual marriage is that marriage is seen as one of the hallmarks of normality and acceptance (Something that the Homosexual community has pointed out in its quest for equality), so it for those with religious objections, it could be said that in granting homosexual marriage society is normalizing a sin.

Again, not that I agree with the argument, but I can follow it.

And it does frequently mention girls getting married at rather young ages, although I'll have to go and look up the numbers somewhere.
Cultural norms do not a commandment from God make, Cabra. And in any case, the age of marriage is NOT the same as the age of consent.

And as for the two topics I mentioned, about selling off daughters and being perfectly ok with shagging the servants, that is stated quite explicitly. Not much room for interpretation there.
I did not say otherwise, and indeed I have used those same arguments against those who would hide behind the Bible in regards to homosexual marriage. Which is why, again, I state that the OP is misleading and a bad argument. There's enough to go on, why add false information to the mix?

The Bible (possibly, I personally think it's a translation error) condemns homosexuality as a sin. A lot of the objections to homosexual marriage is that marriage is seen as one of the hallmarks of normality and acceptance (Something that the Homosexual community has pointed out in its quest for equality), so it for those with religious objections, it could be said that in granting homosexual marriage society is normalizing a sin.

Again, not that I agree with the argument, but I can follow it.


Cultural norms do not a commandment from God make, Cabra. And in any case, the age of marriage is NOT the same as the age of consent.


I did not say otherwise, and indeed I have used those same arguments against those who would hide behind the Bible in regards to homosexual marriage. Which is why, again, I state that the OP is misleading and a bad argument. There's enough to go on, why add false information to the mix?

Oh, I can follow the argument. I never claimed that it's impossible or difficult to make the bible say that homosexuality is a sin.
I just usually point out that there are plenty of other notions in the bible that most Christians today would view as highly sinful and immoral, yet they are condoned and in some cases even demanded. Age of consent so far hasn't been on my list, to be honest, but I can follow the argument in the OP.

I'm not sure if the age you can consent to marriage is covered by the regular age of consent laws as well in the English-speaking world. I'm pretty sure it's the same legal term for both being able to consent to sex and being able to consent to marriage in Germany. This may be where the confusion arose originally.

No, a cultural norm is not a commandment. But then, getting married is not a commandement either, is it? Does it say anywhere that you have to get married, or that not getting married is a sin? Marriage is just a cultural norm. Same as the age people can get married, and if they can or cannot marry a same-sex partner.
The argument could be made that since the bible at no point speaks out against marrying girls of while they are babies, it's perfectly ok to do so.

Oh, I can follow the argument. I never claimed that it's impossible or difficult to make the bible say that homosexuality is a sin.
I just usually point out that there are plenty of other notions in the bible that most Christians today would view as highly sinful and immoral, yet they are condoned and in some cases even demanded. Age of consent so far hasn't been on my list, to be honest, but I can follow the argument in the OP.
The argument still is making no real logical sense, it really is on par with those who claim that homosexual marriage is a front for seducing small boys. It really does not logically follow.

I'm not sure if the age you can consent to marriage is covered by the regular age of consent laws as well in the English-speaking world. I'm pretty sure it's the same legal term for both being able to consent to sex and being able to consent to marriage in Germany. This may be where the confusion arose originally.
While I cannot speak of the UK, in America the age of consent and age to consent to marry are two entirely separate laws.

No, a cultural norm is not a commandment. But then, getting married is not a commandement either, is it? Does it say anywhere that you have to get married, or that not getting married is a sin? Marriage is just a cultural norm. Same as the age people can get married, and if they can or cannot marry a same-sex partner.
Actually the Bible has a LOT to say on marriage. http://www.biblebb.com/files/tniv/MARRIAGE.TXT

And a number of verses can be construed to mean that people must or at least SHOULD marry.

The argument could be made that since the bible at no point speaks out against marrying girls of while they are babies, it's perfectly ok to do so.
A very weak argument.

You are still overreaching it. Your own source notes that age of consent appears NOWHERE in the Bible. You end up with two separate concepts that have nothing to do with each other. The age of consent is about the age of which to begin sexual relations, the ONLY bit in the Bible about that is that a person must be married BEFORE they begin to have sex, what age that is just is not mentioned. So, yes, you are making a Non Sequitur fallacy because believing that people have to be married before starting sexual relations does not mean that those who believe that must therefore also advocate the abolition of the age of consent.


Am I really? Bible regulates pretty much every aspect of life but there is no age of consent there. So if one holds a religious AND traditionalist view, such that religious view = no age of consent, tradition (ie: history b4 20th century) = low age of consent and with the references in bible about early marriages (I assume, again I havent read the bible, so not sure if this is correct), dont all of these tilt the balance to the point I was trying to make?

Yes, believing people have to be married before starting sexual relations does not neccessarily mean that those who believe that must therefore also advocate the abolition of the age of consent. This is true but when u add all the other factors...(history/tradition, references)?


It is the exact same argument that some homophobes use against homosexuals. The argument usually runs that since gays feel that love between two individuals is not wrong, regardless of sex, what they really want is to abolish the age of consent and make pedophilia legal (AKA the MBLA argument). Part one is not connecting to part two, no matter how many times you try to twist it that way.


Talking about homosexuality, bible bans it along with bestiality but it doesnt mention pedophilia? (Tho according to wiki it says men having sex with children is wrong, but post puberty =/= children according to bible?)


As for divorce, it should be noted that the Roman Catholic Church is not the whole of Christianity.

Indeed, I was 2 busy/lazy to go thru all the denominations.

I'm not sure if the age you can consent to marriage is covered by the regular age of consent laws as well in the English-speaking world. I'm pretty sure it's the same legal term for both being able to consent to sex and being able to consent to marriage in Germany. This may be where the confusion arose originally.


In Canada, age of consent is 16 (with close in age exemptions). So that was what I assumed about the permitted marrage age. And indeed it is, except for Quebec where it's 16 for males and 14 for females. Thats pretty surprising!

As I understand things, the main argument against kids engaging in sexual activity, either with age mates or older partners, is that a child's brain isn't fully physically developed, rendering them unable to consent.

"They don't understand all the in's and out's of an adult sexual relationship," they say.

So let's put aside for the moment that most adults don't either, and the fact that we're not talking about an adult sexual relationship, but rather a child (meaning for this argument, under 18) sexual relationship, or perhaps a child/adult relationship, which have their own unique set of circumstances. (And no, I'm not advocating sex between a 10 year old and a 40 year old, however I don't necessarily see anything wrong between a 16 year old and a 25. Insert your own ages as you see fit.)

So those arguments aside, let's concentrate on the whole 'undeveloped brain' theory the experts quote. Point of fact, it's true. The average human's brain doesn't reach full physical maturity until the age of 24.

Now, whether or not the brain's physical maturity is actually a factor in such decision making aside, shouldn't we at least question the basic fact that these so-called professionals seem to have no issues whatsoever with 2 21 years olds screwing each other? Or 18 year olds for that matter.

If the brain's physical maturity is important enough to guide public policy (and I'm not saying that this is the reason we have an AoC of 18 in many places, but rather that it's one of the main arguments used against lowering such) then why aren't the AoC laws being raised to 24? If you're incapable of making a rational decision to engage in a sexual relationship when you're 15 because of the physical immaturity of your brain, what makes you anymore equipped to make such a decision at 18, or 21, or 23?

And what about other countries? Spain's AoC is 13 I believe. Are we supposed to believe that Spain is the Arkansas of Europe, filled with the equivalent of hillbillies who simply don't know any better? Or perhaps they recognize, as other people in this thread have mentioned, that people like to screw, and that they will usually learn to screw as soon as their body starts sending out those signals, usually at puberty. Further, that nothing any legislature can do is going to change that fact.

Take a look at the news. Do a little research. See just how many young people are being placed on sex offender registries (and having their lives ruined in the process) just for screwing each other. Then ask yourself if perhaps we haven't just gone over the deep end.

When your policy to protect children begins to target the very people you're aiming to protect, perhaps it's time to rethink the policy.

Neither Spains nor US's age of consent laws make sense to me. 13 is too low. 16-18 are good, IMO, when there is close in age exemptions like we have in canada so 2 14 yo's can screw while it's illegal for a 40 yo to do a 14 yo.

There's enough to go on, why add false information to the mix?

My thought exactly, now if we could get the fundies to agree to it as well...

Am I really? Bible regulates pretty much every aspect of life but there is no age of consent there. So if one holds a religious AND traditionalist view, such that religious view = no age of consent, tradition (ie: history b4 20th century) = low age of consent and with the references in bible about early marriages (I assume, again I havent read the bible, so not sure if this is correct), dont all of these tilt the balance to the point I was trying to make?
No, because silence does not equal acceptance. Otherwise I could charge you with agreeing with ex-General Tamogami's views because I have not seen anything from you condemning those views. It should also, again, be noted that age of consent does not equal age of marriage. The one states when it's ok for a person to consent to sexual intercourse (With the idea of it being outside of marriage) and the other when it is ok for a person to get married. Given that the Bible doesn't agree with sexual relations before marriage... So, no, your argument REALLY doesn't follow at all. You're not logically connecting part A to part B and your attempt to do so is dishonest.

Yes, believing people have to be married before starting sexual relations does not neccessarily mean that those who believe that must therefore also advocate the abolition of the age of consent. This is true but when u add all the other factors...(history/tradition, references)?
No, because tradition is a funny term that gets bandied about, and again, you're trying to make one term, a legal term from this time, apply retroactively to a situation where the concept did not exist. It would be like saying, "Since the Bible says nothing about hacking and traditionally hacking was considered ok when done with swords to enemies, therefore anyone who uses the Bible as a reason against homosexual marriage is a hypocrite for not being a hacker or supporting them". The proper response to that is LOL, Whut?

Talking about homosexuality, bible bans it along with bestiality but it doesnt mention pedophilia? (Tho according to wiki it says men having sex with children is wrong, but post puberty =/= children according to bible?)

The Bible also doesn't talk about nuclear holocaust. In any case, sex with a post-pubic child is NOT pedophilia, but something else. That, indeed, is a fuzzy area even in modern laws.

Indeed, I was 2 busy/lazy to go thru all the denominations.
Thus your argument falls apart.

My thought exactly, now if we could get the fundies to agree to it as well...
If they did, they wouldn't have anything left to argue with now would they. :tongue:

If they did, they wouldn't have anything left to argue with now would they. :tongue:

And that would be a problem? ;)

"They don't understand all the in's and out's of an adult sexual relationship," they say.

Maybe not the best way to phrase that?

And that would be a problem? ;)
Not in the slightest. :D

If I may play devil's advocate for a second, you guys might want to take your anti-hypocrisy hats off and put on your sociology hats, because there's a pretty obvious reasons why these people (read: rural evangelicals) are doing this. That reason is a breakdown of the economic and social conditions of rural life in America. Put simply, rural life does not offer the kind of things we usually associate with high quality of life: decent-paying jobs, quality housing, social connectedness with a larger community. There are a number of reasons for this, but most of them boil down to a preference by Washington to agriculture through large-scale agg business rather than through small-to-medium sized family farms. Without the farms, the communities that once dotted the prairie as the central hub for resupply are now dying out.

Now, the thing is, it's perfectly natural for people in those dying communities to lash out, and I suppose it's to be expected that given their circumstances, they lash out at the wrong thing. The crusade against sexual permissiveness allows them to blame some other for their problems and take actions that feel productive even if they aren't. It also ties in well with the one civic institution that hasn't really died out yet in the area, and that's the church. Finally, it is true that stable, committed relationships offer the kind of resource pooling that allow people to keep their heads above water, and it's also true that stable, committed relationships rarely exist without fidelity in matters sexual or otherwise. That being the case, I think it's fully fair to blame these people for the fact that they have been unable to correctly label the reason for their plight, and to put a lot of pressure on young women to serve as totems for the larger health of the community. But at the same time, these people aren't some savages doing an exotic ghost dance, and they aren't rubes. They're just pinned by circumstance and groping for a solution in the wrong direction.

No, because silence does not equal acceptance. Otherwise I could charge you with agreeing with ex-General Tamogami's views because I have not seen anything from you condemning those views.


Oh yeah. And I'm comparable to Christianity which regulates all aspects of life. Christianty is supposed to be the moral guide or whatever so it shouldnt be silent on major questions.


The Bible also doesn't talk about nuclear holocaust. In any case, sex with a post-pubic child is NOT pedophilia, but something else. That, indeed, is a fuzzy area even in modern laws.


Again, it's not a good analogy. Nuclear holocaust wasnt there when the bible "came out". However pedophilia was there. Plus, murder is a sin in the bible and nuclear holocause is covered by that I think.

Adults having sex with post pubescent children is not pedophilia if u use the term in a strict psychological sense but pedophilia is also used when adults have sex with minors.


No, because tradition is a funny term that gets bandied about, and again, you're trying to make one term, a legal term from this time, apply retroactively to a situation where the concept did not exist. It would be like saying, "Since the Bible says nothing about hacking and traditionally hacking was considered ok when done with swords to enemies, therefore anyone who uses the Bible as a reason against homosexual marriage is a hypocrite for not being a hacker or supporting them". The proper response to that is LOL, Whut?


Are you talking about hacking a computer, for example? Hack in that sense and in the sense with the swords are two different things. However, marriage/having sex with minors is still in the same sense. And the concept of protecting children has always existed.



It should also, again, be noted that age of consent does not equal age of marriage. The one states when it's ok for a person to consent to sexual intercourse (With the idea of it being outside of marriage) and the other when it is ok for a person to get married. Given that the Bible doesn't agree with sexual relations before marriage... So, no, your argument REALLY doesn't follow at all. You're not logically connecting part A to part B and your attempt to do so is dishonest.




Thus your argument falls apart.


No you dont understand me. I'm not saying all religious people will want the age of consent to be lowered.

I'm basically saying that when people throw "traditional marriage" around, they should also realize that concept also included (tho not necessarily) adults getting married/having sex with minors.

So I guess my argument was basically against "this is how we did for thousands of years". Well, we also did lots of other disgusting shit for thousands of years. And also to abrahamic religion supporters who claim to be moral about everything. Yes silence does not equal acceptance but if you are believing in a holy book which is supposed to answer everything, guide u morally, etc, it should not be silent on important issues.