This reply to this post was good enough, and even tempered enough that it rates a reply in the open.
"Having sex with pre-pubescent children is, and always has been, profoundly evil."
I think it is not a profound evil. I think it's a bad idea. As a believer in parental permission for marriage and arranged marriage it would be my position that scripture does strongly suggest the appropriate time for sexual relations comes some time after puberty. Since even if I did betroth my child to another, let us say as young as the ages mandated in Catholic teaching, I would not give my son or daughter in active marriage until they were ready. I see this as my responsibility as a parent to keep my child safe and healthy. Scripture does say that even the evil among us know how to give good things to their children.
Matthew 7:9-11: "Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?"
In making the point that God will give us good things as his children, Christ also says that even evil people know what's good for their kids. This is of course a general rule as we know that sometimes some do not. As a general rule, they do though. I would say this also elevates the judgement of parents, in general, over that of the state and it's laws. We still must obey laws of course, where they do not ask us to do wrong, but where law permits, I'm relying on parents. Frankly you can keep your paedophilia laws. They don't keep 13 year olds from having sex, and I don't mean that in the sense of "they'll do it anyway", I point out that the law allows a married 13 year old to have sex and I disagree that a 50 year old man does damage to a 13 year old girl with his genitalia because his genitalia are 50 years old. You think it's creepy, I say don't marry your daughter to a 50 year old man then. Fine by me. The 13 year old can have sex anyway with another "child" if that child is within a certain number of years of their own age and neither child will be charged with a crime. I submit the "paedophilia" laws are just to codify what we think is creepy and punish people for what we think is creepy. I think that is way too intrusive.
"While I don't use the Bible as my guide because I am not a Christian, I think you're right in reading the Bible and also that your interpretation conforms to the culture of the time including the most likely facts surrounding the age of Mary when she was pregnant with Jesus. The Bible appears to allow for marriage and further to say this is right in the eyes of God, at puberty. Certainly the Catholic church does, as you've proven."
I disagree and state the culture arose from conformity to scripture. Granted certain things that scritpure would see as acceptable were also found in the surrounding culture, but Christians and Pagans do a great number of things that are the same. Most of the things we do in fact are the same. We sleep, we eat, we go to the "lavatory." The lumberjack song is coming to mind....
"I think your Biblical case for that is strong and it amused me that the 'fundamentalist' Christians would immediately ban you for expressing it. I read your post there and it was sensible."
That is because most of us have become culturally acclimated, as opposed to Mary and Joseph who were not. When we discover that we've been following largely what society has said we're afraid that we will cease to be Christians if we change and as a result we for the most part, scream, cover our ears, throw dust in the air and rush upon the messenger bearing such news.
It is also because we are busybodies, like the culture at large. It's simple. As I said before, if you don't think a child of yours should marry as early as 13, 14 or 15 for whatever reason, a sort of "ageism" or for subjective developmental reasons, so be it. You are their parent. It is true that many children are still children at 14 or even 17. I think though we increase those numbers by not asking our children to learn and be accountable. In the FLDS sect it seems they are largely successful in keeping such early age marriages together. There's something different about the way they socialize their children and in makes them successful in marriage at a much younger age. In that respect I think we can learn from them.
"It seems to me that whether one believes God created us or one believes nature did it, the only logical, non-arbitrary point we're meant to begin reproducing at would be when we can. Reproduce, that is."
Agreed.
"But you go further:
'Paedophilia in fact is simply a secular legal concept.'
I don't know when the laws came into being or when paedophilia was defined. I doubt very much it's all that modern of a concept. However, I'd hope we can all agree that sex with anyone under the age of puberty is wrong so 'paedophilia' is a valid concept. Jesus Christ was very adamant about about not harming children and that it would be better to drown in the depths of the sea.
I agree with him."
Then harm should be your guide. Speaking as one sexually experienced (I'm sure that's NOT a surprise) I don't think a young girl would be an ideal sexual partner if she has not matured sexually. I would not give a girl in puberty or one not having gone through it. If I had betrothed her at a younger age, which is in fact marriage as scripturally breaking it required divorce, I would wait until she was in my view ready. I care about my children. Practically speaking it's hard to find men for my daughters. We've taught them to be boys. I had not realized that arranged marriage was such a good idea until after my children had become a little older so I did not betrothe them.
"Paedophilia sure as hell harms children emotionally and physically: higher suicide rates, promiscuous behaviour following the abuse, STDs, physical pain and damage, etc."
Marriage is simply not paedophilia and the law agrees. If a child is educated in sexual behavior there should be no reason to expect physical harm. STD's come from promiscuous behavior, not from sexual behavior at a young age.
"I believe that criminalizing sexually motivated self-determining behaviour (as a result of their hormones and normal natural feelings including emotions and desire to form relationships) in adolescents from having sex — and people from having sex with said adolescents — is in practice difficult to enforce and probably gives mixed returns at best. I believe, if anything, young people should be encouraged to marry rather than engage in promiscuous unmarried sex, which is the alternative, realistically, for many of them."
I think that's pretty close to what I think as well.
"I've talked to many adult women about sex and one of the questions I've asked — out of curiosity — is how old they were their first time. The ages vary, but certainly include immediately after entering puberty. This and every year after that is common. I find it hard to conclude this is a great evil nor that our laws against it are particularly effective. They seem to dissuade open long-term relationships and marriage, more than they do sex."
The unintended consquence of our culture and our laws is to make a generation of whores and whore mongers out of our young men and women. We can preach all we want that sex before marriage is not a very good idea but what happens, even in the churches, is that they go ahead and do it anyway. Marrying them off might not be such a bad idea. Early. Society is not constructed to do that so that is why people who believe such things live in compounds or ranches.
"I believe society has a legal right to set the age of consent and I respect it as you are obligated to, your religious beliefs to the contrary notwithstanding."
Ok then, but even the laws of Texas permit a 13 year old to marry. What they don't permit is a 13 year old to marry a man with a wife already but they permit the big man on campus to sow his wild oats with as many gullible children as he can find, and the law won't do anything about it unless it is not "consensual." Consent is almost always a given if she says yes to someone roughly her own age.
"I don't think you're saying it's Biblically allowed to have sex with pre-pubescent children. However, your reference to paedophilia being simply a secular legal concept so openly stated, I would like you to clarify.
At what is the earliest age/developmental maturity you believe a person should either be able to marry and/or engage in sex?"
Passing puberty, based on the verse in Corinthians about being past the flower of her age.
"My personal preference would be a statutory number as the age of consent, set by society as debated in its legislature(s), and then, if anything, an exemption allowing sex between people younger than this age who are legally married and have also reached the age of puberty."
The reason paedophilia comes up in association with polygyny is not that polygynists are paedophiles, it is because the state has forbidden marriage to more than one partner at a time and created an age of consent. In Texas you can get married off the books MONOGAMOUSLY to a 13 year old with parental permission. You just can't have another bride. I don't see how this helps. Much better that we just say that polygyny is legal then these people cannot be arrested for anything other than "forcing" a girl to accept marriage or doing so without consent. It doesn't seem to be harming the FLDS for instance in comparison to society at large where divorce rates are much higher, bones are broken more often, and so on
More →
Sphere: Related Content
