Michael Jackson theory...

But there''s no consistency. Belt, you say that 14 is to young to give consent. What happens when you turn 15? Still too young? How about 16? What magical transformation happens in your view which matures these children enough to be ""consenting"". Also, I don''t think you really believe that 14 = unable to give consent = rape in all cases. What about two high school sophomores screwing in their parents'' basement? Is that rape? What about an 18 year old senior with a 15 year-old sophomore? Is that rape? And I''m not asking about the law, what do your really think? Should the guy in Rat''s scenario be hauled off in cuffs and given a record? Under your logic, it would seem so.

Belt, my only point here is that all of your stances on when children are capable of giving consent and what should be allowed when they do are, as you put it, opinion. They are not the opinions of everyone, and there are active elements in the society that are eroding the conditioning of the populace who happen to agree with you. Two generations ago the idea of gay marriage was unimaginable. Two generations from now, the same people who tell us that children are responsible enough to have sex, and therefore hand out condoms in school and fight for teenagers to have access to abortion may well have convinced the society that if Michael had just waited until the boy was 14, there wouldn''t have been a problem.

So wait, gay marraige is just a recent problem? Like in the last 10 years?

Hmm... seems to me gay and bisexual people have been around for eons. You think that because it was never discussed out in the open, that homosexual issues didnt exist? Just because people are discussing a law to legalize a formal agreement between lovers of the same sex now, doesnt mean people didnt pursue it or want it hundreds or thousands of years ago.

You think gay marraige is a new problem. I have 2 issues with your insinuations. The first is ""new."" The second is ""problem.""

"ralcydan" wrote:

But there''s no consistency. Belt, you say that 14 is to young to give consent. What happens when you turn 15? Still too young? How about 16? What magical transformation happens in your view which matures these children enough to be ""consenting"".

Honestly? I don''t think that there is a ""magic"" age that is able to be slapped onto every human being. And that''s the whole problem with the age of consent.

My original point I was that I just don''t see how you''re relating gay marriage with being able to have sex at a younger age. If you don''t feel people should be able to have sex when they are younger it seems really weird to me that you would attack homosexuality. Wouldn''t you attack the media and those people who are selling sex to kids these days?

We could have the same arguement by saying ""If we allow adults to do what they want in the bedroom, then sooner or later we''re going to be allowing them to do those things they do in the bedroom with children!""
That doesn''t make sense, does it?

(When I say you, I mean in general, not specifically you.)

Also, I don''t think you really believe that 14 = unable to give consent = rape in all cases. What about two high school sophomores screwing in their parents'' basement? Is that rape? What about an 18 year old senior with a 15 year-old sophomore? Is that rape?

And that goes down to making specific decisions on a case by case basis. Rape can be defined quite a few ways. One is statuatory rape. Which gets dicey when you bring up your 18yo with a 15yo.
But the law would still go with rape in that case. Do I agree with that? Again, it''d be a case by case thing.
Two sophmores screwing around really doesn''t fit into our discussion at all, as it is two people of the same age. Nothing to do with adults. Would I want my 15 year old (if I had one) screwing in my basement? No but, I wouldn''t try to send them to jail for it.

And I''m not asking about the law, what do your really think? Should the guy in Rat''s scenario be hauled off in cuffs and given a record? Under your logic, it would seem so.

The scenario with the Marine and his girlfriend?
Again, we''re splitting hairs with the age and I personally think (as you asked) that no, they shouldn''t be dragging him off to jail. My logic involved a physically mature adult taking advantage of a kid.

Belt, my only point here is that all of your stances on when children are capable of giving consent and what should be allowed when they do are, as you put it, opinion.
They are not the opinions of everyone, and there are active elements in the society that are eroding the conditioning of the populace who happen to agree with you.

While I agree that the aoc is largely based on opinion, the fact that an adult (someone deemed a fully matured human being) coercing a child (someone who is not a fully matured human being) into a sex act is morally and ethically wrong BECAUSE hurts the child.

And wait a second....I haven''t seen any elements besides that man-boy love group that is trying to erode the age of consent. If anything, the age of consent is getting higher. We can check the record books if we want but, I''d be willing to bet that the average aoc in the US is higher now than it was 20 years ago. Plus, aren''t teen pregnancy rates down too?

Two generations from now, the same people who tell us that children are responsible enough to have sex, and therefore hand out condoms in school and fight for teenagers to have access to abortion may well have convinced the society that if Michael had just waited until the boy was 14, there wouldn''t have been a problem.

I think you''re jumping pretty far from handing out condoms in school to child molestation. I don''t think that the reason people hand condoms out is because they think that kids are responsible to have sex. Besides, back to the original story here on Jackson, how is two adult homosexuals in love going to make people want to allow an adult to have sex with a child?

OK, now that we have discussed why pedophilia is wrong (the whole hurting of the children.....wont Someone think of the CHILDREN!!)

Why do you feel that Homosexuality is akin to molesting a child?

thanks.

edit: an analogy I made didn''t make much sense after re-reading. Changed it.

"belt500" wrote:

The scenario with the Marine and his girlfriend?

I''ll add that the cop didn''t see anything, just heavy making out. Still though, had the cop gotten there a minute or two later, things might have been different.

"Rat Boy" wrote:

I''ll add that the cop didn''t see anything, just heavy making out. Still though, had the cop gotten there a minute or two later, things might have been different.

and to that I''ll add that I don''t think he should have been taken off to jail for making out. If the cop came by minutes later and she was screaming NOOOO as he ripped her clothes off a''la the steroid freak in ""The Program"" then I''d have to go the other way on that one.

""If we allow adults to do what they want in the bedroom, then sooner or later we''re going to be allowing them to do those things they do in the bedroom with children!""

""Legalized abortion won''t lead to abortions being primarily used as birth control.""

""Sex education in schools will lower teenage pregnancy and disease rates.""

""Recognizing a right to sodomy won''t lead to gay marriage being legal.""

""Sexualizing teenagers younger and younger doesn''t contribute to pedophilia.""

All false statements.

the fact that an adult (someone deemed a fully matured human being) coercing a child (someone who is not a fully matured human being) into a sex act is morally and ethically wrong BECAUSE hurts the child.

Hurts the child how? Homosexuals and children raised by homosexuals suffer from disproportionate depression and suicide rates. Maybe if we were more accepting of children who have relationships with adults, they wouldn''t suffer such emotional distress.

Why do you feel that Homosexuality is akin to molesting a child?

I only see them similar in that our attitudes towards both are loosening in society. I am not trying to morally equate the two, but to point out that what is considered immoral and unacceptable today can be commonplace tomorrow. And as the article points out, there are parallels between how we once viewed homosexuality and how we are currently sexualizing children today.

Wow, who knew such a good discussion was going on in a Michael Jackson thread.

Before I dive in, let''s lay some groundwork. I think the age of consent should be 18 across the board. I think that it should not have criminal reprecussions unless there is greater than two years age difference between the participants. So if you are 25 and having sex with a 15 year old, you face criminal charges. You are 19 and having sex with a 17 year old, and you don''t. Same rule applies if both participants are under the age of consent.

With that said, I think that the article Ral linked to is unfortunately correct. Given enough time and exposure, we can become desensitized to practically anything. We have proven that with violence, foul language, sexuality and homosexuality, drugs, etc. If current trends continue, it is only a matter if time before we return to the standards of the ancient Greeks, where older men and boys carry on and it is widely accepted.

As a society, we have lost our sense of shame. Shame is one of the greatest deterrents to behavior available, and yet our current society''s emphasis on acceptance and forgiveness dilutes the power of shame to the point of insignificance.

When we first touch on an issue like this, our sense of moral outrage is evident. An issue like this tweaks our collective moral fiber in a place that was previously unblemished. But after a few such tweaks, we become less sensitive there. A few more and it becomes numb. A few more and we completely forget why we had such indignation over the topic to begin with.

History is ripe with these lessons. Perhaps we should pay heed to them and start to rediscover the moral fabric that this country was built upon, before it becomes too late - before Michael Jackson, Joey Buttafucco and Roman Polanski become the standard bearers for a new kind of sexual ''liberation''.

Legalized abortion won''t lead to abortions being primarily used as birth control

Again, you raise the issue like this was a new debate. Abortion is a form of birth control and has been for ages. All legalizing it did was bring it out of the dark ages. The need has been around for ages. The need will only grow because the world is getting more populous and children are physically maturing earlier and due to the more complex nature of society, these same children are maturing mentaly later or trying to assume mental mature roles before they are ready.

I wouldn''t say that it is a ""need"" of society. More like a conciet. ""I''m going to kill this child because I was sexually irresponsible and don''t want to deal with the consequenses of my actions."" High price to pay.

Just because something has been around and accepted for ages, doesn''t mean that it''s the right or good thing to do.

No its a need. Even if it was a conceit, millenia have passed and countless millions have been performed. Its a need.

And I''ll tell you why.

Its a need because adults want to share themsleves with their chosen partner in adult relationships. This can mean both mentaly and physicaly. There are very powerful emotions invloved with openning yourself up both physically and mentally to someone else. The consequences of which are dramatically multiplied should pregnancy occur.

Adults want to be able to share themsleves in this fashion without the risk of the life altering nature of pregnancy and raising children. Modern society alongwith technology allow adults to experience these powerful emotions without being locked into hard choices created by rearing children.

Thank you BC.

Its a need because adults want to share themsleves with their chosen partner in adult relationships. (emphasis mine)

Doesn''t sound like a need to me more like a want.

Modern society alongwith technology allow adults to experience these powerful emotions without being locked into hard choices created by rearing children.

It''s more like modern society along with technology allows adults to remove the sight, sound and some of the consequences of the murder of a child for the sake of an ""emotional experience"".

Oh, man, don''t get me started...

So dont have sex if you dont want children?

No, just be responsible and realize that having sex tends to produce children. It''s not only there for our amusement. That''s why sex has, traditionally, been reserved for marriage relationships where the eventuallity of children is taken into account. Think of the child first before entertaining a selfish attitude.

*addition: the possibility of the murder of a child far outweighs any sense of entitlement to the personal enjoyment of sex, however deep and emotional that may be.

I dont think you have to think of the child first before entertaining a selfish attitude. It doesnt really have to even get that far. Just be responsible, and protect yourself and you wont have to worry about making a ""selfish"" choice.

Notice at every instance I said ""adult"" relationship. There are lots of concerns mentally and physically from sex that come way before concerns of pregnancy.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

I dont think you have to think of the child first before entertaining a selfish attitude. It doesnt really have to even get that far. Just be responsible, and protect yourself and you wont have to worry about making a ""selfish"" choice.

I agree.

"fangblackbone" wrote:

Notice at every instance I said ""adult"" relationship. There are lots of concerns mentally and physically from sex that come way before concerns of pregnancy.

I''m not sure I completely understand, but my point is that once pregnancy occurs the game significantly changes. Life or death for the child vs. emotional impact on adult. Neither is easy, but one does outweight the other. If the child is not best served in the relationship he/she is concieved in, the child should be put up for adoption.

One should think of the possible outcomes of one''s actions. A possible outcome from sex is pregnancy. One should be prepared to deal with that. Abortion has serious implications both to the emotional and physical health of the mother and a very definitive impact on the child.

Unfortunately, this is a seemingly endless debate that our society is enmeshed in and it goes to the heart of our society''s preoccupation with self. I know there are arguments on both sides of the abortion issue, but abortion is a kind of murder that has for the longest time been too easily condoned.

The sad thing is that this goes hand in hand with the way we treat each other or help each other out as a community. Too many ""fathers"" ditch the pregnant girlfriend to fend for herself so she turns to abortion. There is no one there to help her through a very difficult time. There is no safety net.

P.S. I appologize for derailing the thread

Modern society along with technology allow adults to experience these powerful emotions without being locked into hard choices created by rearing children.

Which is one of the few honest descriptions of why abortion is legal I have ever heard. Of course, it doesn''t explain why we can''t drown unwanted 1 year-olds, since that would certainly keep us from being locked into hard choices. Personally, I think the liberal, ""me""-movement is discriminating against people who didn''t decide to abort, but then later decided they didn''t want the inconvenience of raising a child. Maybe we should allow termination into the 5th year or so, to ensure that people''s ""powerful emotions"" can be expressed freely without a screaming toddler in the next room.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Maybe we should allow termination into the 5th year or so, to ensure that people''s ""powerful emotions"" can be expressed freely without a screaming toddler in the next room.

They have a thing called adoption, Sarcasm Boy II.

They have a thing called adoption, Sarcasm Boy II.

Huh. Who knew? Someone should tell all those pregnant women getting abortions...

I don''t want to sound like a parrot so I''ll just say I agree with everything JohnnyMojo said.

"ralcydan" wrote:

Belt, my only point here is that all of your stances on when children are capable of giving consent and what should be allowed when they do are, as you put it, opinion.



Not that I''m trying to be inflammatory, I''m just confused at what you''re getting at here ral. We''re saying it''s wrong, the law says it''s wrong, you''re saying it''s just arbitrary to say that? Or are you merely saying that attitudes can change, without making a moral judgement?

He''s basically bashing liberal ""values."" Even though a liberal can agree that child molestation is wrong, said liberal lacks the moral grounding to make that call, especially when they tolerate other things that are ""morally questionable"" (abortion, gay marriage, sex education, teen fashion) After all, liberals are godless atheists who wouldn''t know what morality was if it was written in bold letters on a protest sign. At least to most ultra conservatives...

He''s basically bashing liberal ""values.""

By the way, anytime Rat tries to explain what I was saying, especially when he has to use words like ""basically"", he''s pretty much always got it wrong...

So, you''re not bashing liberal values?

"ralcydan" wrote:

By the way, anytime Rat tries to explain what I was saying, especially when he has to use words like ""basically"", he''s pretty much always got it wrong...

Yet he''s still offered more explanation than you.

Yet he''s still offered more explanation than you.

You guys always complain about people repeating themselves over and over and then get pissy when I don''t repeat myself again after putting up 11 posts on a subject covering about 3 written pages (more if you count the linked article and JMJ''s post agreeing with me).

If you didn''t get my point, I guess I can try to explain further - but Rat''s ""explanation"" that what I was really saying was that ""liberals lack moral grounding"" or ""liberals are godless atheists who wouldn''t know what morality was if it was written in bold letters on a protest sign"" has absolutely no basis anywhere in what I stated.

So while you may think his inflammatory BS was ""offering more explanation"", but I gave it all the attention it deserved - none.

You know I''ve never seen a productive or even remotely useful debate on abortion.

At the same time, I don''t think anyone posting disagrees with the premise that children should be protected from an adult sexually molesting them.

I have yet to figure out myself from Ral''s post at what age he thinks a child becomes an adult and no longer needs this protection. Personally I would not place the age anywhere near the age of physical sexual maturity. Personally, when I was in college and a senior and met some college frehsman girls (note use of ""girls"" and not ""women""), I would have felt pretty foul preying on their starry-eyed naivete (in which a college ""man"" showing any interest in them was enough...for whatever.) I felt similarly when I saw seniors dating freshman in high school. There''s something not right in taking advantage of...call it authority, maturity, celebrity, whatever. Non-equal footing. Emotionally, socially, physically.

The extreme end of that is child molestation, and I just don''t see people of any political stripe disagreeing with that, even if they (like me) are pro-gay rights, sex ed in the school, and what have you. My own school system asked my mother (an RN) to give a talk about AIDS back in the late 80s when everyone was hyper freaked about AIDS. She asked if she could use the word ""condom"" and they said no, so she said no.

I come from a very...backwards little small town. Imagine the 1950s still existing, and you''re almost there. And at least from my own personal observation the kids having abortions were the ones from the bible pumping families where sex was never discussed, alcohol was forbidden, and the kids were having sex and drinking every weekend. But everything was great because nobody talked about it, and so it must not really have been happening. I''ve never understood how the assumption that kids can''t make responsible choices, and so we''ll give them no information, in the long run is the best solution for kids who are making those decisions anyway.

Back to Michael, kids who get molested are not making decisions, they are being raped. Rape in my personal dictionary means forcing someone to have sex without their consent. Children are not equipped to consent. And for the record since i saw it somewhere above, neither are people under the influence of drugs and alcohol, and getting someone under the influence to remove their ability to consciously consent is still rape (and even legally rape, at least in Michigan).

To compare rape or more specifically child molestation to two mid-30s/early 40s guys getting arrested in Texas for having sex in their own apartment is logical fallacy (pun intended). One does not lead to the other.

Designer, sexy clothes for children is certainly up for debate, that is if there is anyone who doesn''t find it creepy.

Men are disproportionately the culprits of molesting children, as compared to women. Does that mean that only lesbian couples should get married. What in the world relates the two? A man who likes to molest children of either sex is not gay. He is a child molester, with whatever category of psychotic diagnosis you might want to place on that. A man who loves another man, or a woman who loves another woman, and wants to build a relationship (go back up and read under the ""equal footing"" part, where we''re assuming they''re physically, socially, mentally on same footing, level of maturity, etc. and can be actual partner in a relationship) are normal in their choice of outcomes (the whole relationship part) even if the means aren''t the norm.

"ralcydan" wrote:

So while you may think his inflammatory BS was ""offering more explanation"", but I gave it all the attention it deserved - none.

So how was stating that you do not like liberal values BS? This thread provides enough proof of your dislike of the liberal way of thinking.

"ralcydan" wrote:

You guys always complain about people repeating themselves over and over and then get pissy when I don''t repeat myself again after putting up 11 posts on a subject covering about 3 written pages (more if you count the linked article and JMJ''s post agreeing with me).

I asked a pretty simple question, you ignored it. Here it is again in case you feel like actually replying this time.

"Pyroman[FO" wrote:

""]We''re saying it''s wrong, the law says it''s wrong, you''re saying it''s just arbitrary to say that? Or are you merely saying that attitudes can change, without making a moral judgement?

We''re saying it''s wrong, the law says it''s wrong, you''re saying it''s just arbitrary to say that?

As I stated multiple times, it''s arbitrary. The fact that different states have different ages at different times, and the fact that even in this thread people have offered different opinions as to what is the ""right"" age should tell you that.

Or are you merely saying that attitudes can change, without making a moral judgement?

I didn''t offer a moral judegment, but the recognition that attitudes about something like this can change should lead to a moral judgement from anyone who considers this ""heinous"" and ""evil"". If trends in society are sexualizing children at a younger and younger age, and we truly consider this harmful to children, maybe we should wake up to the fact that we expose children to the wrong things without even trying or noticing.