by Terry 53 Replies latest jw experiences
Methinks you are looking for CERTAINTY where CERTAINTY cannot exist ;-) There will always be some group being oppressed by the tyrannical majority and some other group lobbying for more freedom. Humanity is messy.
That being said, isn't "Are they harming society?" a fairly reasonable basis for deciding whose unusual behavior to accept?
RE: Pedophila not being mentione din the bible.
Theocratic law states that sex is only permisibale in marriage, any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, BUT there are no OT Laws that explicitly state as such, only Laws that punish sexual activity outside of marriage.
For a person to be married they must be of marrying age.
Hence sex with an underage person is prohibited in the bible.
Whiel the bible makes no EXPLICIT comment on AGE of marriage, marriage tended to be for preocreation so the women would have to be of at least "child bearing" age, but we can probably assume that the age was typical of those times, perhaps as early as 13.
People could be pleadged for marriage at early ages but it appears that they wait till they were of age for the actual marriage to take place.
The point again being that the bible doesn't address pedophila because ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong.
IN the NT, we have Paul's views in 1 Corinthians 7.
The topic seemed to be whether homosexuality was negative......Terry
1. This thread, from my standpoint, has almost nothing to do with homosexuality per se.....Terry
The Picture of the Duck.. The Picture of the Duck..
Has nothing to do,with a Duck in the Picture.. Is actually about Waffles..
There! Does that help?.....Terry
..........................
... OUTLAW
Terry
It has to do with the principle of fairness.
What makes you think life is supposed to be "fair"? Thinking life has to be "fair" will be the death of our society.
Bad analogy, just like the ones I hear in Kingdom Halls and Conventions. Can not compare intruding in other people's rights (pyromaniac and molester) with consenting adults who don't interfere with anyone else's rights.
Definitely a case of apples and oranges there. Actions between two consenting adults do not equal child molestation or pyromania. That dad's kung fu was weak.
--sd-7
I am responding to PSacramento back on page 1. I appreciate your challenge, PSacramento.
"But people consent(sic) to harmful things all the time..."
I take it you are considering where there is a consensual relationship, that is both partners are "equal" and one is not dominating or taking advantage of another. One could include in here doing drugs together, S&M, extreme sporting, and so on.
Ski-doo event starts Killer Avalanche
Young adults who are dependent and living at home, not in a position to offer a consensual relationship...."According to whom?"
According to me. I am offering a morality based on "do no harm", and not to those in a vulnerable and dependent position. Young adults who are dependent and living at home are in such a position. I specifically mentioned this because an arbitrary age limit doesn't work. Is a young adult a consenting adult at 12, 16, 18, or 21? Children as young as twelve make decisions regarding their health and who they want to live with (i.e. custody battles). Instead of picking an age, let's say a person living independently has reached the age of consent. That may be at 28.
..only if the impulse is harmful right?
That's right. Impulse control is still needed and required. Not that we are telling people which impulses they should act on and which they should ignore, only that some are off the table.
What the responses on this thread are telling me is that there is no universally valid basis for denying somebody the right to control their own self until they are also seeking to violate another person's right to control theirs.
Mutual consent doesn't seem to "cut it" as far as the GROUP-THINK is concerned.
When a group seeks to force us to conform it may claim a basis in "higher" standards. "The good of the greater number" is one such argument.
Yet, it always comes down to a few authority figures actually choosing those standards.
Who acquires the power to FORCE US to conform and how do they acquire such authority?
It doesn't matter when basic human rights are involved. We are forced in or we are forced out!
I think we can all agree we are dealing with boundry issues and as such it is the "owner" of the "property" who defends the border against encroachment.
Each of us "owns" our own body.
We draw the line--each of us---as it pleases us. We draw the line---each of us---as it displeases us.
The dissonance comes in when we find ourselves part of a larger group which lays claim upon us.
Family, school, government, religion and military are larger groups which seek to enforce arbitrary standards.
Isn't that supposed to be where zombie movies come from? Our fear of the masses, the knowledge that we're always potentially at the mercy of the majority over some issue where we're in the minority?
The point again being that the bible doesn't address pedophila because ANY sex outside of marriage is wrong.
Men could not legally marry men under bible law. But it ALSO specifically forbids gay sex.
Men could not legally marry animals under bible law. But it ALSO specifically forbids bestiality.
Men could not legally marry their mothers under bible law. But it ALSO specifically forbids incest.
