|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 18:50:22 GMT -5
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 18:50:22 GMT -5
And will you further clarify that such marriage is required to be of volition of both parties? Are you married? Did you make the choice to get married? I can't speak for all marriages that have occured in the world in the ancient past to current, so I don't know whether ALL marriages were by choice. Do you know if the opposite is true? Please clarify further then. LOL, if anything the marriage process in the past was subject to a greater degree of inspection than now. Are you trying to out question me? Do you think you will be in any way sucessful in this tactic? Why are you confused about my wanting you to clarify, what I'd assumed but not heard, that you believed volition to be an ethical requirement for marriage? If a marriage is not by choice, then isn't it wrong? Should marriage not be subject to scutiny?
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 18:52:23 GMT -5
Post by MaccusGermanis on Feb 9, 2007 18:52:23 GMT -5
Let me guess they suggested that the age of puberty was 9.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 19:18:07 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 19:18:07 GMT -5
Are you married? Did you make the choice to get married? I can't speak for all marriages that have occured in the world in the ancient past to current, so I don't know whether ALL marriages were by choice. Do you know if the opposite is true? Please clarify further then. LOL, if anything the marriage process in the past was subject to a greater degree of inspection than now. Are you trying to out question me? Do you think you will be in any way sucessful in this tactic? Why are you confused about my wanting you to clarify, what I'd assumed but not heard, that you believed volition to be an ethical requirement for marriage? If a marriage is not by choice, then isn't it wrong? Should marriage not be subject to scutiny? The discussion in this scope was blondie saying that atheists or more specifically, humanists are the ones that formed the concept of a restriction on sex between people at a certain age level. I disagree and stated that religion held that concept first and not humanism. I said that the concept of restriction was put in place because sex was restricted outside of marriage. The discussion then went to when the age of marriage was found to be acceptable from the same religious standpoint. I gave details that the age established was at the completion of puberty. That age is not a static number of years between people or between different time periods in history. So, it's not the age that is the determination, it's when puberty has completed. This effectively rules out all pedophiles, since that group is specific to prepubescent males and females. The marriage restriction by default rules out unconsenual sex such as rape or molestors or other freaks as well. So, now we are at the point in the discussion were you are not arguing the volition of sex but of marriage. My response to that is that the marriage process was handled by the parents and that their children's best interests would be the consideration. The children's wishes, etc. being a part of that process. Some of that process has continued in part to recent times where the male would ask the parents for their acceptance in the marriage. I am sure that the process was detailed and as far as Jewish custom, can be found in their oral law. I am not trying to out question you, I already addressed the concerns you posed and have now re-iterated them again.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 19:18:36 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 19:18:36 GMT -5
Let me guess they suggested that the age of puberty was 9. I guess you will find out if you read it.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 19:49:35 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 19:49:35 GMT -5
I didn't say it was RIGHT. I said it was accepted then, and not accepted now. I have a 10 year old daughter, there is no way I think it would be OK to marry her off and have her be a breeder. I am just saying, that what was accepted in past history is just that...HISTORY. People tend to learn from it. Right. And thank goodness secular ideals of the twentieth century helped us overcome so many of those nutty religious ones. You agree with my premise.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 19:59:44 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 19:59:44 GMT -5
blondie, your premise is vague. Like I said, you use the words "kid" and "children", which needs to be defined better. Once you define that, you may find that dixiepixie, doesn't agree with your premise.
I have stated that the religion of Judaism and Christianity defined the cutoff to be the completion of puberty and gave logical reason for that.
Is your argument that males and females should not have sex until they are 25? 21? 18? 16? 13?....what? Define what you consider to be the cutoff please in age, physical status or abstract.
This should be easy since you say secular ideas are what developed the concept of a cutoff in the first place.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:15:00 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:15:00 GMT -5
Is Chapter 2 of the Didache written early enough for you? Congratulations you found an obscure text recognized by the Ethiopian Orthodox church which puts having sex with little boys along side being greedy, eating meat and witchcraft. Obviously homosexuality is forbidden by the OT and NT. Strange that whoever wrote this seemed to feel it necessary to clarify that little boys are off limits too. It's still OK to do the wild thing with 8-year old girls. As long as you buy them first. But honestly, thanks for introducing me to this.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:20:41 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:20:41 GMT -5
PUBERTY = MATURITY = MARRIAGE Personally, I'm against having sex with 12 year olds. I guess that's just me.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:27:08 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 20:27:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:29:21 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:29:21 GMT -5
Oh, I'm sorry 14
Some urge that children should marry as soon as they reach the age of puberty, i.e., the fourteenth year
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:31:46 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 20:31:46 GMT -5
Oh, I'm sorry 14 Some urge that children should marry as soon as they reach the age of puberty, i.e., the fourteenth year Uh and don't forget the 12 month period between acceptance of marriage and the consumation of marriage...so now we are at an age of 14 - 15 for actual sex.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:34:45 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:34:45 GMT -5
OK here's my point rephrased.
Having sex with little girls was commonplace until the 20th century.
Feminists and child labor activists (commies) arrived about that time and championed the rights of women and children.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:36:02 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 20:36:02 GMT -5
Back to the original topic...NAMBLA and it's "female" wing of the group wants to change the concept, legal and otherwise in order to have sexual relations with prepubescent males and females.
This whole sex before marriage thing opens up a lot of problems for the humanist.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:38:54 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 20:38:54 GMT -5
OK here's my point rephrased. Having sex with little girls was commonplace until the 20th century. Feminists and child labor activists (commies) arrived about that time and championed the rights of women and children. So, you go from using the words, kids and children to now, little girls. Can you not discuss this in a rational manner? You are using liberal political speak to obfuscate the concept of the discussion.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:39:42 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:39:42 GMT -5
Now we are at an age of 14 - 15 for actual sex. OK, so you're actually using the magical writings of a bunch of dead Jews to justify having sex with kids. How many of those 14 (10 more common) year old little girls wanted to do it with those old men they were sold to? I'm glad I'm an atheist. We don't have imaginary friends telling us to do horrible things.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:41:21 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:41:21 GMT -5
So, you go from using the words, kids and children to now, little girls. Can you not discuss this in a rational manner? You are using liberal political speak to obfuscate the concept of the discussion. Little girls are both kids and children.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:44:00 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 20:44:00 GMT -5
LOL. Your original premise was that atheists/secularists, ie. whatever were the originators of the concept of an age restriction on sex. I clearly and logically layed out the facts that it is not correct and that Religion was the originator.
You have lost that, strike three and now want to debate the merits of the religious precepts that formed that concept. Fine, but be intellectually honest about it and don't be absurd by implying that the religious marriages, ACCEPTED BY THE PARENTS were between old men and little girls.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:46:39 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 20:46:39 GMT -5
So, you go from using the words, kids and children to now, little girls. Can you not discuss this in a rational manner? You are using liberal political speak to obfuscate the concept of the discussion. Little girls are both kids and children. No, the purpose of your terminology is to lower the age of religious marriage as I have documented in an intellectually dishonest manner...pretty soon you will use the words baby girl.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 20:58:35 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 9, 2007 20:58:35 GMT -5
I don't see you problem with NAMBLA then. Seems like a consensual relationship between a 16-year-old boy and a 21-year-old man is innocent compared to selling your 12-year old daughter to some nasty 50-year-old man. Commonplace until the 20th century when secular morality started to really take hold for the first time since classical Athens.
You can nitpick but my meta-argument is that ethics based on "revealed truth" is dangerous and arbitrary.
But that's a topic for another thread.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 9, 2007 21:07:08 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 9, 2007 21:07:08 GMT -5
I don't see you problem with NAMBLA then. Seems like a consensual relationship between a 16-year-old boy and a 21-year-old man is innocent compared to selling your 12-year old daughter to some nasty 50-year-old man. Commonplace until the 20th century when secular morality started to really take hold for the first time since classical Athens. You can nitpick but my meta-argument is that ethics based on "revealed truth" is dangerous and arbitrary. But that's a topic for another thread. I have detailed already that sex outside of marriage is not acceptable from the religious perspective. I have also made comments that shows logically why NAMBLA's ideology is contrary to the religious precepts. You have lost the debate on it's merits and have degenerated into arguing my position wrongly and adding into the debate (selling) without substantiation. You should just stop at this point, re-read the posts from the beginning and try again or agree that your premise was wrong. A premise that I have shown to be wrong and you have shown very little to be correct, even though the weight of proof is on your end. Secular morality....what a joke.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 1:24:24 GMT -5
Post by dixiepixie on Feb 10, 2007 1:24:24 GMT -5
I didn't say it was RIGHT. I said it was accepted then, and not accepted now. I have a 10 year old daughter, there is no way I think it would be OK to marry her off and have her be a breeder. I am just saying, that what was accepted in past history is just that...HISTORY. People tend to learn from it. Right. And thank goodness secular ideals of the twentieth century helped us overcome so many of those nutty religious ones. You agree with my premise. Actually...No, I do not agree with your premise. You are still making an assumption about something you don't have a clue about. My 10 year old daughter is a prepubescent little girl. In most cultures, the onset of puberty marks the threshold into adulthood. I do not live in a culture or in a time where this is a normal part of life, but I am not going to degrade someone else because their belief system and culture is different from mine. My sister's ex husband (he is a French Algerian national here legally on a work visa) just brought his new wife to the states. They were betrothed at her birth by their parents (he was 4 at the time). It was an arranged marriage, just as most in that country are. What you are failing to understand is that over time, cultures and customs evolve and change. My grandmother was 13 when she married my grandfather in 1938. My mother was 16 when she married my dad in 1967. I was 21 when I married in 1992. I hope my daughter is 35 before she has her first date, but that is not rational.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 10:26:30 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 10, 2007 10:26:30 GMT -5
I have detailed already that sex outside of marriage is not acceptable from the religious perspective. I have also made comments that shows logically why NAMBLA's ideology is contrary to the religious precepts.. How much research did you do to figure out that adultery is frowned upon by Christianity? Everybody knows that. Having sex with 12-year old slave girls is fine and dandy according to YHWH. Just make sure you give her daddy a goat. If your original point is "NAMBLA is trying to push it's vile agenda." I agree with that. My counter point was that Religion has long condoned having sex with children and all sorts of other things that we condemn today based on secular morality. Secular morality is based on human dignity not on the voices in the head of some Arab thousands of years ago. We've overcome some of Christianity's vile agenda. I'm not your straw man.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 11:03:46 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 10, 2007 11:03:46 GMT -5
I stated sex outside of marriage was not acceptable from a religious perspective, which includes more than just "adultery".
Using the term "slave girls" is just another attempt to mischaracterize the religious position. So far, all you do is make statements but never substantiate those statements with anything.
NAMBLA: At least we agree on one thing.
Your point is pigeon holed into the concept that the religious marriages that I have detailed are marriages between an old man and a prepubescent girl. This is contrary to the facts I presented to you. Marriages were promoted to occur when BOTH the male and the female were young.
"Secular morality is based on human dignity not on the voices in the head of some Arab thousands of years ago."
Human dignity is a concept. A concept is something formed by a person. A concept can be accepted by people as a way of life.
The "voices in the head of some Arab thousands of years ago...is still a concept and still must be accepted by people as a way of life. Since I am speaking of the Hebrews, it's not correct to use the term Arab, since the revelations in the Old and New Testaments were never given to the sons of Ishmael.
Both concepts can be shown through experience to either be right or wrong. The religious concept has been around a lot longer and accepted to this day by many more people than the concepts of human secularism.
What has human secularism brought mankind so far?
Besides your erroneous position on marriage, what exactly is the Christians vile agenda that you speak of?
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 11:11:51 GMT -5
Post by billt on Feb 10, 2007 11:11:51 GMT -5
"Besides your erroneous position on marriage, what exactly is the Christians vile agenda that you speak of?"
corny, you make these things too easy...the vile agenda that YOU demostrate is using government to control others behavior based on YOUR religious beliefs.
God gave people "free will" but YOU use a vile agenda of thwarting that free will.
this nation was founded on the concept of personal freedom yet YOU have a vile agenda of taking away freedom based on your view of morality.
corny it has already been shown to be FACT that YOUR religion said it was OK to have sex with children and the prectice happened for many years.
13 year olds getting married used to be fairly common in this country with "church" approval!
corny some people can stand on their own 2 feet and do what is "right" because they understand that is the proper way to conduct oneself, NOT because they desire some eternal reward, NOT out of fear of your version of God.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 11:45:27 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 10, 2007 11:45:27 GMT -5
"Besides your erroneous position on marriage, what exactly is the Christians vile agenda that you speak of?" corny, you make these things too easy...the vile agenda that YOU demostrate is using government to control others behavior based on YOUR religious beliefs. God gave people "free will" but YOU use a vile agenda of thwarting that free will. this nation was founded on the concept of personal freedom yet YOU have a vile agenda of taking away freedom based on your view of morality. *If you think it is vile to restrict NAMBLA's ideology versus NAMBLA's ideology being vile, then you have a reprobate mind in my opinion. Sorry, but I don't agree with what you consider to be morality. You are a super NAMBLA warrior aren't you. Are you a member?
corny it has already been shown to be FACT that YOUR religion said it was OK to have sex with children and the prectice happened for many years. 13 year olds getting married used to be fairly common in this country with "church" approval! *Yes, I have shown that my religion establishes marriage being acceptable at the age of the completion of puberty, which can range from 13-16 years of age. What it was exactly on average for the Hebrew society in that time period nobody can say with certainity..but I don't think it would be too far off. So what? It was a marriage that parents of both parties, including the parties themselves found acceptable. By your logic, you would have no basis to reject it.corny some people can stand on their own 2 feet and do what is "right" because they understand that is the proper way to conduct oneself, NOT because they desire some eternal reward, NOT out of fear of your version of God. * LOL.....and you learn what is right by what? Oh, how I think it funny for humanists to reach a ripe age of maturity and credit their morals and ethics, that they learned by religion directly or indirectly, to themselves. It all manifested in their own minds from the sheer goodness of their humanity alone. What humble thinking. * Christian's eternal reward is not based on WORKS billt, but by FAITH. The works are a consequence of having the faith, not the source.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 13:04:26 GMT -5
Post by twista on Feb 10, 2007 13:04:26 GMT -5
re: Phinehas...
"* LOL.....and you learn what is right by what? Oh, how I think it funny for humanists to reach a ripe age of maturity and credit their morals and ethics, that they learned by religion directly or indirectly, to themselves. It all manifested in their own minds from the sheer goodness of their humanity alone. What humble thinking."
So by that statement, one would guess that you feel there were no morals or ethics, until there was religion? Seems like quite a stretch to me... No society could have survived without ground rules of conduct, and a religion would not have been able to come into being without those rules being in place. It seems like the religious morals and ethics were taken from the humanist viewpoint, and then religious people added the rules that made the Nambla stuff acceptable, later on...
LOL...
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 13:20:06 GMT -5
Post by phinehas on Feb 10, 2007 13:20:06 GMT -5
twista- You might want to make this your avatar then: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_HumanDo your jokes always have to rely on twisting other peoples words or making up what people don't say, hence your forum name? Religious people did NOT make NAMBLA stuff acceptable, it has been stated numerous times on this thread that sex OUTSIDE of marriage was not acceptable from the religious viewpoint, so this RULES OUT NAMBLA. It's not a hard concept to grasp. Name one society in the history of the world that didn't have a foundation in a religion.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 13:22:54 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 10, 2007 13:22:54 GMT -5
What has human secularism brought mankind so far? The idea that old men having sex with little girls is bad. That was my point. No religion ever did that to my knowledge. I know Christians like to take credit for 20th century human rights but that's nonsense. The vile morality found in the Bible isn't hidden. This guy's done a lot of research. www.evilbible.com/
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 13:24:32 GMT -5
Post by blondie on Feb 10, 2007 13:24:32 GMT -5
Name one society in the history of the world that didn't have a foundation in a religion. The USA.
|
|
|
NAMBLA
Feb 10, 2007 13:27:49 GMT -5
Post by billt on Feb 10, 2007 13:27:49 GMT -5
serious question corny, were you looking in a mirror as you typed this?
"Do your jokes always have to rely on twisting other peoples words or making up what people don't say,"
i ask because that is precisely what YOU DO!
|
|