Seeing as people seemed to have missed it, here is the pre-emptive answer to the responce I knew was coming:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zyr
"Almost certainly, under the age of consent, a person would not understand the implications"
- But what if they did? Perhaps they can't, but is that because a young person has no capacity for such things, or because they are sheltered from anything sexual for many years? If they grew up in an enviroment where they were taught sex in an open way early on, wouldn't they then be able to make their choices in an informed way?
|
This is, in fact, the responce to the 13/30 year old example. You say that a 13 year old would never, never, have the capacity to understand what they need to, to have sex. But why is that? Perhaps it is impossible, but that is why these are hypothetical situations. I was trying to discuss the morality behind the decision to have sex. Given that it is possible for the minor to have a higher mental (or perhaps more accurately, emotional) capacity, is it alright?
The comparisons to homosexuality were not ment to infer that homosexuals are pedophiles, or more likely to be pedophiles. The example could have used another sexual preference. Perhaps it should have been like this: "Why should [attraction to centain group of people] be acceptable when [other attraction to another certain group of people] is not?"
__________________
"Oh, irony! Oh, no, no, we don't get that here. See, uh, people ski topless here while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about, uh, '83 when I was the only practitioner of it, and I stopped because I was tired of being stared at."
Omnia mutantu, nos et mutamur in illis.
All things change, and we change with them.
- Neil Gaiman, Marvel 1602
|