I still think Lawrence should be renamed Santorum Was Right.

That appears to be the position of our moral leaders in the Vatican, no? According to reports out today.

Oh, what the heck, I am up for some punishment:

Harry --

Do you believe that adult-child sex is good for the children? How so? Which cultures practice it? If so, are the benefits fwere or greater if the adult is a parent? Cultures, again? I suppose we draw the line at adult of the same species, no?

What Paul said. Santorum for President in '08.

I should add: Slippery slope my touchas; its like Tuckerman's ravine on an icy day.

MG:

In Victorian England, I'm told, it was not uncommon for nannies to take liberties with their charges. Not to mention the tradition of buggery at boarding schools.

The benefits are fewer if the adult is a parent, because then it tends to represent betrayal by authority, an abuse of power.

Bestiality has a history as old as domesticated animals, and is fairly harmless, to man or beast. (Except, of course, for the loss of "dignity", which some value far more than others).
Opponents of gay marriage love to bring up bestiality, but in reality it has no bearing whatsoever on the question of gay marriage, group marriage, or polygamy/polyandry.
It merely means that those who make such a connection, view people who are different from themselves as inhuman, which is a common human trait.

Michael:

Why is it that it is only with sexual morality that modern minds like yours and Harry's argue that evidence of past practices justifies modern approbation? History is rife with slavery, antisemitism, murder, robbery, drunkeness, drug addiction, etc. so should we be cool about those too? I mean, my goodness, if we condemn those, aren't we risking a charge of hypocrisy?

"The benefits are fewer if the adult is a parent...". It sounds like you are wrestling with a lot of pros and cons on the subjects of paedophilia and pederasty. Care to elaborate, especially on the pros?

Peter:

Maybe because some argue that past ostracism is, in and of itself, sufficient grounds for current ostracism.

Jeff:

Well, they would be wrong, but who exactly argues that?

Michael:

If you squander your own human dignity have you not made yourself inhuman?

This post started with the proposition that there was a "slippery slope" from approval of homosexualality to paedophilia etc.
Michael, Jeff agree that is what is required and that it is good.
OJ and Peter agree that is what is required and it is bad.
Have I got this right?

Peter B:

The examples you list are almost universally condemned. One difference between us is that you also believe that you, personally, are harmed by people you've never met who have gay sex, and I do not believe that to be true.

As to adult/child sex:
Let me be absolutely clear. I do not believe that children can consent to sex, and any adult who has sex with children should be punished, including by death if they will not stop their behavior. Thus, although I support NAMBLA's right to exist and publish, if any member should act on their fantasies, they should be imprisoned.

However, when examining children who have been subjected to such actions, it's clear that not all have been harmed. Some children like and benefit from the attention paid to them by their abusers.

oj:

Yes, you have, but it's not up to us to determine who has, or has not, squandered their dignity. It's the whole "Judge not" deal.
We can determine whom we wish to associate with, but not who doesn't deserve any rights.

h-man:

No, homo-sex, adult/child sex, and bestiality are not at all interlinked.
Opponents of homosexuality like to throw in the kitchen sink, hoping that something will revolt those who are apathetic towards gays.

h-man

And proponents of homosexual marriage like to hurl charges of bigotry, hoping they will drown out or deflect arguments they can't handle.

Michael, how do you make the leap from saying that since other societies have experienced a variety of sexual practices, we should condone all of them? Can you name me anyone who says we should not accept incest, child sex, polygamy, etc on the grounds that they are unknown to history? Is this an idelogical, first principles position based upon freedom and choice that you hold absolutely, regardless of consequences?

So, you are in support of NAMBLA even though children can't consent. How about an organization celebrating sex with the mentally deficient, provided of course they don't actually do it?

BTW, I do not believe I have been personally harmed by the activities of people I have never met. Nor have I been personally harmed (if you mean objectively measurable)by any polygamous relationship, incest, or anyone else's porn consumption, drug-taking etc. That isn't the argument, and I think you know that. Why the ad hominems?

Michael:

Don't be absurd, of course it's up to us. We're a society, not a bunch of individuals.

And your support for pedophile organizations and advocacy, but not for the action itself, is, as the Court has shown, going to prove a meaningless distinction.

Peter B:

I don't say that any sexual act known to have been practiced is OK, I merely say that it's up to opponents of such practices to show where the harm is in allowing it. By examining history, we can hopefully shed some light on why such practices aren't common anymore. Were they dropped for political reasons, such as the US forcing Mormons to abandon polygamy ? Was there an economic change, such as the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society, that reshaped families ? Etc.
Once we have some backround, then we are better able to determine if those factors still hold true.

If people want to fantasize about sex with the mentally deficient, (and no doubt some do), I have no legal objections.

As to your opposition to homosexuality, I must have misunderstood an argument you made last year, when I thought that you were claiming social harm due to the mere existence of homosexuals. If not, I apologize.

oj:

We're a society COMPOSED of individuals.
However, if you want to say that we're a collective, please note that the collective society's bar for squandering dignity is far higher than your individual one, thus, you must be incorrect.

Michael:

The command to "Love one another" is incompatible with endorsing and enshrining sodomy.