Quote:
Quote by: Simonius  I'd still be saying what? Your response makes little sense.
In the eyes of the law, biologically and psychologically he would acting quite normally.
People probably shouldn't be having sex before marriage, but that does not make it 'sick'. The age of consent is an arbritary legal line, based on what we deem civilised, not on nature. |
Well paedophilia has been considered civilised at various times, and in various places, throughout history. Look at the Spartans - they turned pederasty into a national institution! The same goes for incest, if you look at the royal families and aristocracies of ancient Egypt, Rome, and medieval Europe. Hell, even Queen Victoria married her cousin. Then there's polygamy, which has been practised all over the world at various times, and is still practised in the Middle East (and of course Utah...). Yet I don't see anyone arguing in favour of child-grooming, sister-shagging or bigamy. Do you?
The fact is that, though the age of consent laws are arbitrary, they were introduced in recognition of a widespread consensus that sex involving children and young teenagers was morally reprehensible, just as is sex involving two relatives, or husbands having numerous wives. And it's that consensus of what is morally reprehensible which I agree with, and utilise, when I deem sex with a thirteen year old 'sick'.
Whether or not it's 'natural' for a thirteen year old to be having sex is irrelevant; it's perfectly 'natural' for me to bang my next door neighbour's head open with a sharp rock and feast on the juicy grey organ stored inside, as our early human ancestors doubtless resorted to cannibalism at times. While at his house I may as well abduct his wife, and bring her back to my house for the purposes of procreation. Nevertheless we regard both cannibalism and rape as sick, and most of us also consider it sick to have sex with a thirteen year old.