Gay couple charged with molesting their sons and pimping them out to pedophile ring

I know @gatorplank enough to know he probably has problems with all sorts of heterosexual conduct, particularly outside the confines of monogamous marriage.

In comparing strict Christian standards to today's "normal" standards, there are far more types of sexual conduct that are forbidden (including heterosexual conduct) than are permissible.

Doesn't mean he, himself, is sneering at us, just means he's acknowledging the standard Christians are to strive for.

 

Do you really think he thinks a straight person doing a sex crime calls heterosexuality as a concept into question?

 

Of course not, that's also not what I said, and I don't think that's what he said either.

It would be awfully difficult to call heterosexuality as a whole into question because the human race requires it to survive, regardless of how good or evil our society may be.

While homosexuality has been called into question in the past and continues to be called into question under strict religious standards, I think the point he was making was that everyone questions sexual conduct to some extent, the question is where you draw the line. I would hope everyone on this board draws the line at pedophilia, for example.

 

Ok, it just seems like one of those double standards people (especially conservatives) say are bad.

 

If drawing the line at pedophilia is a double standard then literally everyone is guilty of double standards.

Is the intended conclusion from this that double standards are normal and there's nothing wrong with them?

 

That's not the double standard, c'mon. Its that for some people if a gay person does pedo stuff, it calls into question being gay, if a straight person does pedo stuff, it changes nothing about what they consider 'the norm.' The straight person wasnt a "deviant" before they did pedophilia.

 

About double standards

 

Also

 

Correct...most people draw a line somewhere and say, "This kind of sexual conduct is evil."

 

I think lack of consent is an ethical issue. That children cannot consent to sex has nothing to do with anyone being gay, straight, or bisexual. If you are saying that pedophiles who sexually abuse children could arguably be considered their own sexual orientation, I think that would amount to changing the definition.

 

In the current cultural moment, what makes something a letter in the ever-expanding LGBTQIA+ acronym is the letter represents some kind of throwing off and casting away of the Judeo-Christian understanding of sexual ethics and marriage. That is what the acronym is. That is the one thing that unites the letters in the acronym. It represents a moral revolution. Because that is the nature of the acronym, which is to cast away the historic Christian belief in sexual ethics and marriage as found in the Bible, it seems like you have picked an arbitrary stopping point and you're hiding behind the definition of words to justify that stopping point. Now you are correct that pedophilia is technically not within the definition of sexual orientation because a child is not a gender according to the definitions of our words, but the question remains...if you totally throw off Christianity and the Bible as a moral framework for sexual ethics, then how can you argue that being attracted to a child is wrong? I believe it is wrong because I am a Christian, but you are not a Christian.

What would you say of someone who is attracted to children? Would you tell them it is totally fine as long as they don't abuse any children? I would tell them they need to repent of evil desire. The desire to do evil is evil, and only marriage, between one man and one woman, is honorable. Nothing else is.

There are societies in history that considered pedophilia to be acceptable. Rome is an example of a society that came to accept pedophilia. And the appeal to history is one of the arguments advocates make for homosexuality. The same appeal to history could be made here.

 

The issue is that pedophilia was far more accepted in the Bible than it is now. Young Jewish teen girls regularly had children in those days, often with much older men, whom they were betrothed to. So rejection of pedophilia is not really directly based on Christian ethics (as long as the child was married to the adult), which is why the practice continued in Christian societies for centuries after that.

I'd say the modern approach to sexual morality, which is primarily driven by consent, is far more unforgiving towards the practice than is the Bible. Children can't provide consent, so they can't be willing sexual partners.

 

Adulthood was 13 years old in Jewish culture. We say the age of consent is 16 in the United States. Interestingly, I did the research on this, and there have been times in US history where the age of consent was as low as 7 or 10 years old in some states. Early colonial America had consent laws consistent with the ages that Judaism understood them to be. Jewish culture said it is 13, but paternal consent was necessary for a woman to be gifted in marriage in Jewish society. We are talking a 3-year difference between our societies, and you are using a standard that has only existed since the late 19th century. The major point here, though, is marriage below the age of adulthood, as defined in Judaism, was strictly forbidden in Jewish society. You are looking through the lens of 20th and 21st century United States law and norms, and so you probably look down on the legal norms from centuries ago. However, laws were different. In Jewish culture, though, they had a category for pedophilia, and they would have considered sex with someone who is not an adult in their culture to be a very serious crime.

Nonetheless you have hit on the consent issue, but Judaism had better safeguards for women because paternal consent was required. The wisdom of the father protected the daughters far more than US law does. Most people know the story...some 18 year old woman is swept off of her feet, and then it all goes bad. She did not discern his bad character, and now she's in a permanent situation that will affect her the rest of her life even if she gets divorced. Things like that did not happen as often in Jewish culture because of paternal consent. You can sneer at how archaic and anti-feminist that seems, but it gives some context to the consent issue.

 

True. Isn't that when you claim we were more consistent in our morality with the Bible? As I am saying, attraction to undeveloped children is less morally acceptable under the current sexual morality, including LGBTQ acceptance, than it is under pure biblical morality.

Yeah, they were much more willing to put up with what we would both consider pedophilia (assuming that you think sleeping with 13 years olds is pedophilia).

So you are excusing pedophilia because those societies accepted it and didn't call it that? Okay, but it is consistent with my point. Modern morality is far harsher on pedophilia than biblical morality.

Yeah, it is a good thing fathers in biblical times were all looking out for the daughters' best interest, not trying to use them to do business deals.

 

Don't get me wrong...my skin crawls at the thought of a man in his 20s or 30s marrying a 13 year old girl. However, I remember being attracted to the girls in my class before I entered the 7th grade. That is a normal experience for a middle school aged boy. Biologically, that is when the switch flips and people start experiencing attraction to the opposite sex. And that is probably why many cultures have accepted marriage around that age in the past.

Also, consider that the New Testament teaches that marriage was a provision given by God so that people don't have to burn in lust, which is a sin, if they lack self-control. Think about it. What age do people start struggling with that? By 7th grade it is a major struggle for most middle school boys. And there is no caveat given by Paul in 1st Corinthians that his instructions only apply if you are at least a certain age. It is literally, if you lack self-control, and you are burning with lust, then you should get married. That is just what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians. So, if a 14 year old teenage male was burning in lust, but he was mature and ready for marriage, I do believe there were instances in ancient Israel where young adult men like that were marrying young adult women. And they didn't live in a time where people needed a 21st century education before they got married. They lived in a very different time than we did.

The grade levels where we see the switch is flipped and people start experiencing sexual attraction for the opposite sex is the de facto evidence of what the Biblical marriage age was IMO. It might go against your modern lens, but if someone is old enough where they can look at the opposite sex and commit the sin of lust, then they are old enough to need the provision of marriage that Paul spoke of in 1st Corinthians.

 

So, as I said, modern sexual morality is tougher on pedophilia than your preferred sexual morality scheme, which largely accepted it within the confines of marriage.

Also, it just warms my heart how much you are now engaging in moral relativism when it becomes convenient to do so (it was okay back then, just not now because people need more education). Different times means that morals have to change. It just is an odd choice to defend the practice of older men marrying 13 year olds with that first step into moral relativism.

 

“We are talking a 3-year difference between our societies”

literally lol’d at this. Kind of an important 3 years with regards to physical and mental development, no?

Good lord, man.

 

Well…let’s take your views to their logical conclusion then. Is every middle school boy who has ever had a crush on a middle school girl a gross pedophile? I think that is an extreme view. Don’t you?

What is the category for middle schoolers who find the opposite sex of their own age attractive? Are they normal people or are they pedophiles?

All I’m arguing for here is a lower minimum age for marriage could be considered natural based on the kind of behavior we observe in middle school aged students, since that is the age where they begin to be attracted to the opposite sex.

I would not be recommending anyone in our time and culture to be marrying at that age because a man needs to be able to provide first before he gets married. However, in a historical setting where someone who was the age of an 8th grade male was capable of doing that, then I could see marriage being allowed at a lower age.

 

If two 7th graders are attracted to one another, and they kiss near their lockers would you consider them both to be pedophiles?

 

I have a question for you …… which societies existing some 2000-2100 years ago defined pedophilia as sexual attraction towards a person under the age of 17?