by Terry 53 Replies latest jw experiences
For a person to be married they must be of marrying age.
Where is this stated 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. . .
Where is it stated in the Bible that they must be of child-bearing age?
Society holds up a large sign which reads: IF WE DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD DO IT--YOU CAN'T DO IT.
And that's about it.
Children and the incompetent must be shielded, certainly.
But, those who are older and who are competent.....?
I guess that is why Las Vegas is so proud of their motto: What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas....
Aren't PSac and Lore posting in the wrong thread? The talk about marrying and pedophilia was in mP's thread.
"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
Indeed, so whether an action is harmful becomes relevant to consent.
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.
You don't get to decide that you have a say on who has consent simplybecause you WANT it to be so.
Neither do I.
That is an issue for the law to decide and soemthing like that tends to be cultural and societal.
.
.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.
We get back to who decides what is harmful and IF that matters and who decides concent and in the end, what we are getting is:
Whatever is acceptable at the time.
It isn't a question of leagl even because, in some places people concent to illegal sexual activity "all the time".
IT seems that it isn't about what is legal or about what is harmful really, it is about what we ( society) decides at any given time, to be "OK".
