truth dancer wrote:We as a civilized society have collectively determined that girls should no longer be used by men.
Sometimes I get the feeling that we live in a society that has determined that men are useless.
I'm all for giving women all the rights and opportunities that men have. I don't like the idea of treating any human being as property, whether you call that person a slave or a spouse. I could care less about what's between the legs (unless I'm choosing a spouse).
It's true that I'm disguisted by a man in his 40's going for the goods of a 14-year old. However, I also feel it's wrong for a 20 year old to be with a 30 year old. And yet, that's perfectly fine with society. Go figure. I also think that age limits for consent may depend somewhat on what kind of society one lives in. In a simple hunter-gatherer society, perhaps getting married young isn't such a big deal. Granted, I'd prefer that both partners in the marriage be about the same age, but for some strange reason society says it's legal for an 18 year old to marry a 40 year old.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
truth dancer wrote:We as a civilized society have collectively determined that girls should no longer be used by men.
Sometimes I get the feeling that we live in a society that has determined that men are useless.
I'm all for giving women all the rights and opportunities that men have. I don't like the idea of treating any human being as property, whether you call that person a slave or a spouse. I could care less about what's between the legs (unless I'm choosing a spouse).
It's true that I'm disguisted by a man in his 40's going for the goods of a 14-year old. However, I also feel it's wrong for a 20 year old to be with a 30 year old. And yet, that's perfectly fine with society. Go figure. I also think that age limits for consent may depend somewhat on what kind of society one lives in. In a simple hunter-gatherer society, perhaps getting married young isn't such a big deal. Granted, I'd prefer that both partners in the marriage be about the same age, but for some strange reason society says it's legal for an 18 year old to marry a 40 year old.
It's not for a strange reason, but for the reason that society has determined based on centuries of experience that 18 years old constitutes a reasonable and prudent age to demarcate the transition from childhoold to adulthood, and all the entails morally and legally. Scientific research on the brain confirms this societal experience by demonstrating the the human brain of a child is not as developed as that of an adult meaning the children do not possess the same capacities, by and large, for reason as adults.
This is not true in every case, but appears to be reasonably accurate on average.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
Sometimes I get the feeling that we live in a society that has determined that men are useless.
No, just being valued for more important things.
I'm all for giving women all the rights and opportunities that men have. I don't like the idea of treating any human being as property, whether you call that person a slave or a spouse. I could care less about what's between the legs (unless I'm choosing a spouse).
GREAT!
It's true that I'm disguisted by a man in his 40's going for the goods of a 14-year old. However, I also feel it's wrong for a 20 year old to be with a 30 year old. And yet, that's perfectly fine with society. Go figure.
Our society is such that we collectively come to an agreement that most of us can live with.
I also think that age limits for consent may depend somewhat on what kind of society one lives in. In a simple hunter-gatherer society, perhaps getting married young isn't such a big deal. Granted, I'd prefer that both partners in the marriage be about the same age, but for some strange reason society says it's legal for an 18 year old to marry a 40 year old.
The father we go back the more animalistic no? The more a group of people considers women objects for the use of men, the less women are considered human beings.
The amazing thing about humankind is that we have invented compassion and care beyond that of the animal world. (at least in many people). The fact that we are coming to treat woman as human is evidence of the incredible depth of the human being moving toward something quite different than the rest of the animal kingdom.
Why some people look to the primitive animal world (or the primitive human world) to support polygamy just baffles my mind!
~dancer~
Edit for clarity.
Last edited by Bing [Bot] on Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
guy sajer wrote:This is not true in every case, but appears to be reasonably accurate on average.
I tend to agree, but wouldn't God and by extension His prophet, presumably know who the exceptions are? Now granted, I'm not saying that one should use that as an excuse to chase jailbait with impunity. I'm certainly for obeying the law of the land (of course there are exceptions for harmful laws, but the age of consent doesn't appear to be one of them). Indeed, I prefer such laws to help protect us from everyone who wants jailbait from becoming a self-proclaimed prophet and manipulating people to that end.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
truth dancer wrote:The more primitive the society the more animalistic no? The more a society considers women objects for the use of men, the less they are considered human beings.
The amazing thing about humankind is that we have invented compassion and care beyond that of the animal world. (at least in many people). The fact that we are coming to treat woman as human is evidence of the incredible depth of the human being moving toward something quite different than the rest of the animal kingdom.
Why some people look to the primitive animal world (or the primitive human world) to support polygamy just baffles my mind!
No, the more primitive the society, the less experience it takes to sufficiently master it and be responsible for ones-self in it. In other words, I think the age of consent can be lower in those societies. I do not think it means people should consider themselves to be more like animals. They're still people for cryin' out loud.
I do not support polygamy because of the animal kingdom. I support it on the basis of allowing adults to give consent--possibly even consent to things that are less than ideal for themselves. I allow adults the privilege of smoking their lungs out or vegging on their couches. Just don't expect me to follow suit.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
No, the more primitive the society, the less experience it takes to sufficiently master it and be responsible for ones-self in it. In other words, I think the age of consent can be lower in those societies. I do not think it means people should consider themselves to be more like animals. They're still people for cryin' out loud.
Ohhh to clarify... I was thinking about our ancestry back 10 or 20 or 50 million years. The farther back we go the more animaistic or the less human.
Is it possible that some of you are confusing prudence with morality?
From what I gather, the age minimums for marriage were set based more on prudence than morality (or the morality was a function of prudence). For example, it has been determined that, in our current day and age, the chances of a young pubescant teen making a wise choice in marriage, and having a good and lasting marriage, and being able to effectively raise children in our highly complex world, is very remote, and as such, it has been in the state's interest to prevent, by law, marriages below a certain age, and to require parental concent above a certain age. I am not only fine with that, but I encourage it.
However, in the past, some of the current concerns for young pubescant teens may not have been relevant (the chances of successful marriage while eaking out a simple life on a farm in rural America in the 17-1800's, may not have been all that bad for pubescant teens), or were perhaps even mitigated by such things as arranged marriages (surely one is not going to argue against arranged marriage on moral grounds--though one can certainly make the case based on personal preferences). For them, the issue of prudence may have had more to do with the teens ability to procreate (given the prevailing perception of marriage as an intitution for bearing and raising children) than personal maturity. As such, the issues of prudence today (not to be confused with morality), may not apply to the past, and thus for us to judge the past based on todays standards, may not be fair or accurate.
And, is it possible that some of you are being conveniently selective in your moral outrage and righteous indignation?
I mean, in this day and age where there is rampant divorce, serial marriages, high incedences of promiscuity and infidelity, pervasive pornography, indescency, and rape (statutory or otherwise), etc. etc., it seems more than a bit imbalanced to look back more than a century and a half, and wax apopletic over a likely sealing, and wild speculation about sexual relations, with a near 15-year-old girl.
wenglund wrote:Is it possible that some of you are confusing prudence with morality?
From what I gather, the age minimums for marriage were set based more on prudence than morality (or the morality was a function of prudence). For example, it has been determined that, in our current day and age, the chances of a young pubescant teen making a wise choice in marriage, and having a good and lasting marriage, and being able to effectively raise children in our highly complex world, is very remote, and as such, it has been in the state's interest to prevent, by law, marriages below a certain age, and to require parental concent above a certain age. I am not only fine with that, but I encourage it.
However, in the past, some of the current concerns for young pubescant teens may not have been relevant (the chances of successful marriage while eaking out a simple life on a farm in rural America in the 17-1800's, may not have been all that bad for pubescant teens), or were perhaps even mitigated by such things as arranged marriages (surely one is not going to argue against arranged marriage on moral grounds--though one can certainly make the case based on personal preferences). For them, the issue of prudence may have had more to do with the teens ability to procreate (given the prevailing perception of marriage as an intitution for bearing and raising children) than personal maturity. As such, the issues of prudence today (not to be confused with morality), may not apply to the past, and thus for us to judge the past based on todays standards, may not be fair or accurate.
And, is it possible that some of you are being conveniently selective in your moral outrage and righteous indignation?
I mean, in this day and age where there is rampant divorce, serial marriages, high incedences of promiscuity and infidelity, pervasive pornography, indescency, and rape (statutory or otherwise), etc. etc., it seems more than a bit imbalanced to look back more than a century and a half, and wax apopletic over a likely sealing, and wild speculation about sexual relations, with a near 15-year-old girl.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
No, and no.
God . . . "who mouths morals to other people and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, . . . and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites this poor, abused slave to worship him ..."
wenglund wrote:I mean, in this day and age where there is rampant divorce, serial marriages, high incedences of promiscuity and infidelity, pervasive pornography, indescency, and rape (statutory or otherwise), etc. etc., it seems more than a bit imbalanced to look back more than a century and a half, and wax apopletic over a likely sealing, and wild speculation about sexual relations, with a near 15-year-old girl.
Three months shy of her 15th birthday is not all that "near." And the "sealing" was indeed a marriage, as dear Helen had become the "wife" of Joseph. I'm inclined to believe there were marital relations between Helen and Joseph, based on Joseph's marital relations with other plural wives.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
I just had a thought (I know, there's a first time for everything).
Apologists these days seem to be in the habit of saying that we critics have a lot to explain away.
Which would you rather explain?
A rock in the Arabian desert bears the inscription NHM and is in roughly the same place a similar-sounding place is mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
A man sleeps with women (some teenagers and some married women) behind his wife's back and claims God commanded him to do so and that those who engaged in his "marriages" would ensure exaltation in heaven by so doing.