I read the articles the other two folks posted, and it looks to me like you have it wrong. I think you’re arguing more of an emotional position here, which is fine.

Also, oddly, it does look like Argentina allows sex with children as long as it’s not “corrupting”. How strange.

Correlation? Ok, fine. If one can only expect to live 20 years max beyond 15, then one better get the family making on it’s way.

More correlation: In 1991 the median age for first marriage in Argentina was 23 for women and 26 for men; Brazil, 2006: 26 and 28; US, 2011: 27 and 29.

Morality:

descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
some other group, such as a religion, or

-accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

THIS ONE-normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

All rational persons! Homophobia is as irrational as racial prejudice. Stomping on the civil rights of a group of people who levy no threat to individuals or society is immoral. How is that proven wrong? The same way you two guys are trying to prove that since it was once acceptable to take children as sexual partners, regardless of consent? See below.

1. Having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious: a specious argument.
2. Deceptively attractive.

I am an atheist. Morality doesn’t come into play on the age of consent between a child and an adult (as this argument has been posed) as much as logic. The same logic should be applied to same sex marriage. It is illogical to allow adults to have sex with children with no I’ll effects to the child and society as a whole and it is also illogical to allow some consenting adults marry, but not others. To not allow logic to drive laws and instead be ruled by fear dressed up and called morality is the epitome of acting immorally.

I notice from Wikipedia that the age of consent in Argentina is 13. Life expectancy is 75.3 there.

Age of consent in Mali is 18. Life expectancy is 54.5.

This confuses me, because according to you these variables should be strongly correlated.

It sounds to me like you have some kind of religious belief here regarding age of consent. That’s totally fine, but you should be honest about it. Else, you should admit you’ve lost the argument and move on.

You might find it helpful to read this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality — I don’t think “morality” means what you think it does.

Other Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

If you cant see or vote for the District office you are running for, and you cant see or vote for a Measure (J), that you would be charged with administerinig, it means that you dont live in that District, unless otherwise not qualified on other grounds.

Its pretty simple folks! Ask Mr. Harris’ neighbors and other people in Sheffield Village! In fact, this is the same Sheffield Village area that tried to completed secede from Oakland in 1983 and 1984.

On the other topics, I love the robust discourse…

Your logic is flawed. Society made that decision imposed upon all members of itself without detraction. We have advanced 90 years from the time when the average life span of the average person was 35 to recoginize the lack of ability in a child, of any age, to consent to bear children of their own (since that would be a given). The example is specious at best, completely apples and oranges.

Consent is not possible between an adult and a child in sexual relations, then or now.

Consensual relations between same sex adults, not immoral. To refuse to acknowledge that in 2012 is immoral. To profess to be a civil rights activist while harboring prejudices strong enough that you seek to trample basic human rights? Also immoral.

You chose pedophilia, but you could have chosen the holocaust or slavery arguing that those that subscribed and benefitted from such beliefs systems were not acting immorally in their time. History is the judge, not the peers of the time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

“In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7.”

And your logic is flawed:

“Society has determined that children lack the maturity to make choices in regards to sexual activity.”

Precisely my point. Society made this decision through a collective decisionmaking process based on people’s opinions and gut instincts. Their “tummies,” as you nicely put it.

Your argument for an a priori morality lacks any basis. Morality derives from popular consensus.

The ability to consent to sexual activity must be metered somehow. Society has determined that children lack the maturity to make choices in regards to sexual activity. Despite the onslaught of imagery and wording “young, horny, teens”, hardly any 13 year old girls really want to have sex with older guys. No, really. Speaking as a former teenage girl, I guarantee it. Again, clear consent to sexual activity cannot come from a child. It is always coercion and/or force. No Nambla koolaid about denying children their right to sexual pleasure. No individual freedoms are stamped upon with an age of consent law as we are all under the same restriction there.

And, no, even historically 12-13 year old girls were not physically ready to bear children. In fact, menstruation often did not begin until 14 until after the industrial revolution. But if you don’t believe me, ask any labor and delivery nurse what happens to their pelvic floors when girls that young grace the stirrups.

Come on, where’s the beastiality argument?

Let me show you why you’re wrong on this.

Plenty of cultures throughout history thought what we consider now to be pedophilia was just fine, particularly when you talk about a 12 or 13 year old girl.

People’s opposition to pedophilia is precisely because it “makes them feel funny in their tummies.” There is no objective argument against it, other than our cultural biases as modern westerners. In fact, biologically, pedophilia might make a lot of sense, given when girls are at their highest likelihood of having healthy offspring.

You’re arguing for moral relativism. It’s a bad argument. Absolute standards are very important. The question, of course, is where to draw the line. That is the function of culture and society. Meaning, decisions on this are necessarily a result of the prevailing opinions of the people at large.

I agree that attitudes about gays are changing. And, in fact, I probably agree with your side of the issue. But, arguing the opponents are immoral is a shallow analysis of the issue.

The basic human rights of ALL people transcends politics. It is completely ignorant to believe someone’s prejudice is a political stance. It is a moral stance–an immoral one.

You’re right, “I” don’t get to dictate how a free people “feel”, but I’ll be damned if I’ll sit idly by and let someone’s “That makes me feel funny in my tummy” immature emotions dictate the civil rights of others. Free people will not get to dictate how other free people form their families. Anyone who wants to be on the prejudiced side of this issue is free to do so, but then take responsibility for your beliefs and wear the badge of prejudice proudly. Don’t back peddle when it suits you. History will reserve space for this people in the same light as such folk like Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond. If that’s the path you want to take, that’s fine. But don’t expect it—-in a city with a LGBT population 5 times the national average—to not affect your career.

Care to wager how this will play out over the next 10 years?