Australian judge says says incest, pedophilia ‘may be accepted’ by society

[Bamabuzzard]

Yes, because those of us that are tolerant of Homosexuals and seek to give them full equality also enthusiastically seek to support those who rape the non-consenting

I'm not sure that was the basis of it. The basis of it was that if we start redefining marriage and moving away from the traditional standard then we were going to open up the standard continuing to be moved.

Also, I don't think the argument was for rape or non-consenting. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't matter if the under age consents or not? It is still illegal, correct? I think the angle would be that people have the right to marry who they want if both are consenting.

I'm not standing here supporting it. I'm just giving you the background of what was already being talked about while the same sex debate was going on. It seems it is now surfacing.

 

[Tidewater]

How can someone say something like this and no one bat an eye? You have just accused some not insignificant percentage of the elected people in Washington of being part of occultic groups, which I am assuming in this instance specifically means non Christian, and no one has a problem with it.

I am all for the calling a spade a spade, and the majority of people in elected office in Washington are fairly useless, but to say that "many are in cults that use pedophilia as an initiation right" just seems absolutely insane. Well maybe saying it isn't insane, but if you actually believe that, that is insane.

Take a list of the members of congress, senate, judiciary and actually flag which ones are members of such a cult. Otherwise saying stuff like this does nothing more than build up the sense of detachment that Americans already feel from DC and only harms the chances that something productive and useful can get done. Imagining them as monsters is a heck of a lot easier than imagining that they are human beings, definitely flawed but human beings none the less, who are trying their best to do what is best for themselves and their districts. This isn't a defensive piece, and saying that they are actually doing their job, just that I truly don't believe that "many" of them are the monsters you make them out to be.

Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac. And there is a lot of testosterone and and estrogen flying around Capital Hill. So there is a lot of pipe being laid. Some weird stuff as well (remember Dick Morris was reported to have liked having his toes sucked, which I just don't understand, but whatever), but I never heard of widespread pedophilia, other than Barney Frank and Mark Foley.
On the other hand, nothing and I mean absolutely nothing would surprise me about DC.

 

[Jon]

I'm not sure that was the basis of it. The basis of it was that if we start redefining marriage and moving away from the traditional standard then we were going to open up the standard continuing to be moved.

Also, I don't think the argument was for rape or non-consenting. Correct me if I'm wrong but it doesn't matter if the under age consents or not? It is still illegal, correct? I think the angle would be that people have the right to marry who they want if both are consenting.

I'm not standing here supporting it. I'm just giving you the background of what was already being talked about while the same sex debate was going on. It seems it is now surfacing.

Sorry, "redefining" you mean like the Churches have over the last 2000 Years right? You are aware of course that Marriage existed before Christianity aren't you?

as far as the same sex debate goes sure there were idiot comments about people marrying their pets (animals can't consent) and inanimate objects (again, no possibility of consent) though I don't recall any sort of position on paedophilia in those threads. Even if there were, as you said children cannot by definition consent to marriage or sex so my position that supporting the "rights" of paedo's to do what they want to do will never be supported by anyone advocating the rights of consenting adults. To say otherwise is simply an untruthful way to paint those who are for freedom in a negative light.

 

[Relayer]

as far as the same sex debate goes sure there were idiot comments about people marrying their pets (animals can't consent) and inanimate objects (again, no possibility of consent) though I don't recall any sort of position on paedophilia in those threads. Even if there were, as you said children cannot by definition consent to marriage or sex so my position that supporting the "rights" of paedo's to do what they want to do will never be supported by anyone advocating the rights of consenting adults. To say otherwise is simply an untruthful way to paint those who are for freedom in a negative light.

You speak very enthusiastically for equality among consenting adults.

Do you extend this equality to consenting adults who have a loving incestual relationship?

 

[Bamabuzzard]

Sorry, "redefining" you mean like the Churches have over the last 2000 Years right? You are aware of course that Marriage existed before Christianity aren't you?

as far as the same sex debate goes sure there were idiot comments about people marrying their pets (animals can't consent) and inanimate objects (again, no possibility of consent) though I don't recall any sort of position on paedophilia in those threads. Even if there were, as you said children cannot by definition consent to marriage or sex so my position that supporting the "rights" of paedo's to do what they want to do will never be supported by anyone advocating the rights of consenting adults. To say otherwise is simply an untruthful way to paint those who are for freedom in a negative light.

I'm not sure how Christianity has anything to do with it. Most societies throughout history regardless of denomination have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So I'm not sure why you are trying to insinuate that the only group of people who have "defined" marriage are Christians and there is this enormous "other group" who defined marriage another way. But if I'm wrong please show me and I'll gladly stand corrected.

 

[Jon]

You speak very enthusiastically for equality among consenting adults.

Do you extend this equality to consenting adults who have a loving incestual relationship?

yes


(and I find it abhorantly disgusting)

 

[Jon]

I'm not sure how Christianity has anything to do with it. Most societies throughout history regardless of denomination have defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So I'm not sure why you are trying to insinuate that the only group of people who have "defined" marriage are Christians and there is this enormous "other group" who defined marriage another way. But if I'm wrong please show me and I'll gladly stand corrected.

My apologies, Christian perspective was an unfair assumption on my part

I would point out though the definition of marriage has evolved over the years and varies wildly from culture to culture.

It really hasn't had the "one man one woman, marry who you chose" definition it does today for very long and in much of the world it still doesn't today. There are arranged marriages, people being sold into marriage, polygamous marriages and I'm sure others that I cant even conceive at the moment in cultures today on much of this planet. Historically there were marriages that were literally spoils of war, there were men married to hundreds of concubines as a show of wealth and yes there were even gay marriages.


To claim there is a definition that only equals what we have in America or much of the West in 2014 is simply not true.

 

[selmaborntidefan]

I don't think pedophiles can ever be lumped in the same conversation with homosexuals for marriage purposes because their "loves" are underage and unable to consent by law.

But you surely know where this one will eventually go, right?

There was a time in this country when "by law" being gay was illegal. Not just that - being an adulterer or dope user or well pick a list. Just because someone decided upon an arbitrary age at some point in time that "X" was the age of consent obviously doesn't make it binding from generation to generation.

I'm NOT defending it, I'm merely pointing out what the argument is going to be. Saying "X cannot consent" assumes the proposition to be true across the board. But all it takes are articles like appeared in an APA journal in 2000 claiming that pedophilia could actually be BENEFICIAL and long-term damage next to nonexistent - to start making the case.

The case won't be made overnight, but it WILL be legally sanctioned someday at a minimum as a disability. Any of you guffawing and saying this is ridiculous might ought to remember that if someone had said as recently as 1999 that gays would have a legally protected marital status nationwide in about 15 years, you would have said "no way." This is something that was considered a mental illness forty years ago - and we've gone from mental illness to constitutionally sanctioned right. (Keep in mind that the Republicans helped run against gay marriage in 2004, and it was probably the reason they won some of those states, ALL of which they needed. The tide turned quick).

Why would you think this would be any different? All it will take is some more articles like the one in APA in 2000. Now - to be fair - there was some later strong criticism of that article, but it won't matter in the long run. It will only take a clever lawyer and appeals to "other rights" to make the case. It's how some make a living.

And the fact it involves children EVENTUALLY will not matter. Saying it does now it not the same as saying it will then.

An underage person can marry with parental consent, but I highly doubt a parent would sign off on something like that.

Marriage is by its nature a contractual agreement and minors simply don't have the capacity to contract.

I don't know that I would agree with this last but the idea that "children cannot consent" is - again - circular. The moment somebody stops to ask the "why" and "what age" question and it changes is when it will start to crumble.

Once again - I'm NOT advocating it, and I'm not even invoking it as an argument against gay marriage. But I AM telling you that it WILL happen at some point.

Why if the words "marriage" and now "husband" and "wife" can have changing meanings would you not think "children" could as well?

 

[seebell]

I agree Jon. In ancient times it would be more proper to say marriage was between a man and many women. Usually the more powerful the man the more numerous the wives.

Cousin marriage has been very common throughout history. It is legal in some US states and most of Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/people-stop-thinking-appropriate-cousins-marry/

Male bonding ceremonies were common in Medieval Europe until outlawed by the Church. Whether they were sexual in nature is in dispute.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/u...ex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

In a few societies women had multiple husbands
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/glossary/g/polyandry.htm

http://io9.com/5925324/polyandry-or-the-practice-of-taking-multiple-husbands

 

[Tide1986]

But you surely know where this one will eventually go, right?

There was a time in this country when "by law" being gay was illegal. Not just that - being an adulterer or dope user or well pick a list. Just because someone decided upon an arbitrary age at some point in time that "X" was the age of consent obviously doesn't make it binding from generation to generation.

I'm NOT defending it, I'm merely pointing out what the argument is going to be. Saying "X cannot consent" assumes the proposition to be true across the board. But all it takes are articles like appeared in an APA journal in 2000 claiming that pedophilia could actually be BENEFICIAL and long-term damage next to nonexistent - to start making the case.

The case won't be made overnight, but it WILL be legally sanctioned someday at a minimum as a disability. Any of you guffawing and saying this is ridiculous might ought to remember that if someone had said as recently as 1999 that gays would have a legally protected marital status nationwide in about 15 years, you would have said "no way." This is something that was considered a mental illness forty years ago - and we've gone from mental illness to constitutionally sanctioned right. (Keep in mind that the Republicans helped run against gay marriage in 2004, and it was probably the reason they won some of those states, ALL of which they needed. The tide turned quick).

Why would you think this would be any different? All it will take is some more articles like the one in APA in 2000. Now - to be fair - there was some later strong criticism of that article, but it won't matter in the long run. It will only take a clever lawyer and appeals to "other rights" to make the case. It's how some make a living.

And the fact it involves children EVENTUALLY will not matter. Saying it does now it not the same as saying it will then.



I don't know that I would agree with this last but the idea that "children cannot consent" is - again - circular. The moment somebody stops to ask the "why" and "what age" question and it changes is when it will start to crumble.

Once again - I'm NOT advocating it, and I'm not even invoking it as an argument against gay marriage. But I AM telling you that it WILL happen at some point.

Why if the words "marriage" and now "husband" and "wife" can have changing meanings would you not think "children" could as well?

And of course a child in the womb has no capacity to consent, but people unilaterally abort them every day. It seems rather "convenient" to invoke consent with respect to sex but not for life and death.

 

[Tide1986]

I agree Jon. In ancient times it would be more proper to say marriage was between a man and many women. Usually the more powerful the man the more numerous the wives.

Cousin marriage has been very common throughout history. It is legal in some US states and most of Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/people-stop-thinking-appropriate-cousins-marry/

Male bonding ceremonies were common in Medieval Europe until outlawed by the Church. Whether they were sexual in nature is in dispute.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/u...ex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

In a few societies women had multiple husbands
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/glossary/g/polyandry.htm

http://io9.com/5925324/polyandry-or-the-practice-of-taking-multiple-husbands

Pederasty has historical precedent. As a result, are you saying it should be acceptable today?

 

[Jon]

Pederasty has historical precedent. As a result, are you saying it should be acceptable today?

so does slavery, what's your point?

earlier in the thread someone claimed that we were "redefining" an ill-informed and ultimately wrong definition of marriage. Seebell and I both offered claims to counter that. Your point, while perhaps valid in someway to the overall thread is fairly irrelevant in this context

 

[Tide1986]

so does slavery, what's your point?

earlier in the thread someone claimed that we were "redefining" an ill-informed and ultimately wrong definition of marriage. Seebell and I both offered claims to counter that. Your point, while perhaps valid in someway to the overall thread is fairly irrelevant in this context

The vast majority of your "evidence" supports male/female marriages. Even in Ancient Greece, which is frequently used to support same-sex relationships, marriages were almost entirely between males and females because even the ancients recognized one essential factor: inheritance. And same-sex relationships do not produce legitimate offspring.

 

[Displaced Bama Fan]

I agree Jon. In ancient times it would be more proper to say marriage was between a man and many women. Usually the more powerful the man the more numerous the wives.

Cousin marriage has been very common throughout history. It is legal in some US states and most of Europe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cousin_marriage

http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/02/people-stop-thinking-appropriate-cousins-marry/

Male bonding ceremonies were common in Medieval Europe until outlawed by the Church. Whether they were sexual in nature is in dispute.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/u...ex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

In a few societies women had multiple husbands
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/glossary/g/polyandry.htm

http://io9.com/5925324/polyandry-or-the-practice-of-taking-multiple-husbands

And in Afghanistan, you have Bacha bazi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

Give the Taliban credit for at least outlawing this and opium cultivation when they were in charge.

 

[Bamabuzzard]

My apologies, Christian perspective was an unfair assumption on my part

I would point out though the definition of marriage has evolved over the years and varies wildly from culture to culture.

It really hasn't had the "one man one woman, marry who you chose" definition it does today for very long and in much of the world it still doesn't today. There are arranged marriages, people being sold into marriage, polygamous marriages and I'm sure others that I cant even conceive at the moment in cultures today on much of this planet. Historically there were marriages that were literally spoils of war, there were men married to hundreds of concubines as a show of wealth and yes there were even gay marriages.


To claim there is a definition that only equals what we have in America or much of the West in 2014 is simply not true.

I agree that how marriages have come about have varied from culture to culture. What our culture calls pedophilia has actually been very common throughout history. Older men having younger women with arranged marriages has been very common in many cultures. Which makes me think that the hurdle in our country might not be as high regarding a consenting older man marrying or "being with" a girl that our law currently deems underage. Will it happen? I don't know. Is it possible? Yep. History has shown us that answer.