...better the devil you know, sez I

Rob...the fundamental flaw in your argument is this.

>>You are assuming that ANY behavior, however offensive or disgusting, is 'ok' as long as it does not physically harm anyone else<<
Now.. sadly for all of us, this simply is not the case. It might be argued that sex with 9 yr old girls does not 'harm' them..and there are 1.2 billion people who would agree with that position. So...lets say we don't 'impose' a marriage age of 16 on females, or.. . but allow it to be 'at puberty'. Also don't 'impose' a maximum age of a man who can marry a girl of puberty onward. Ok.. now.. show me the (secular) pshychology which supports that position... and I'll show you pigs flying :)

The only way such a position can be argued, is that 'in the context' of such a society, there are sufficient THREATS against those who dislike it, for it to continue unchallenged. This does not in the slightest mean it's a good or moral thing.

You also fail to recognize the social impact of 'permitting' behavior as opposed to 'stopping' it..... No matter which way you go, there are problems. Its just more suitable for your own argument to hold the view that the 'non imposition' of rules, laws and customs has no ill effect.

Taking my favorite illustration from Cape York... this is a classic example of 'removing' laws..and 'allowing' women and children to have access to steel axes. If you follow the issue up, you will see that the result was the breakdown of the complete social structure and virtual extinction of the tribe.

The other problem with your approach, is... WHERE....do you stop?
By what criteria do you decide "This far and no further" when you know full well that the gay lobby politicized itself and managed to sway large slabs of public opinion. Why can others not do the same with things which are repulsive to us.

In case you've not tweaked yet..I am seriously trying to persuade you to change your mind.

"It might be argued that sex with 9 yr old girls does not 'harm' them..and there are 1.2 billion people who would agree with that position."

You harp on and on about this one BD, yet it seems that in Britain for
300 years, the age of consent was 10! Sheesh, those god fearing
Brits, your ancestors, were paedophiles in our language!

This is the point. Morality is about lines in the sand that we draw.
Look at the age of consent today.

http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm

In one country you will be quite legal, in another thrown in jail.

Hi Yabbs :) yes, I harp...but not so much because of the age of the girl... its more because of the age of the MAN....in that specific instance. 53....9 .......53.....9 ; go figure.

You are quite right... we draw the lines in the sand... and in one case "Jail" and in another.. "Free".....16rs and 1 day "free", 15 yrs and 11 months "jail"

Doesn't this tell you something about 'moral relativism' and where it can lead? If we have no foundation on which to build our social values, then they can and do charge off in any old direction depending on who has the loudest voice.

I'll live dangerously here and quote the bible.

1Tim5:1 Do not rebuke an older man harshly, but exhort him as if he were your father. Treat younger men as brothers, 2older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.

Can you find any fault with that passage? I sure can't.
Common sense tells me that 'marriage' should be between people reasonably close in age for a host of practical reasons.

Note also, that the above passage is an exhortation, not a 'law'... it has to be such because you can only fulfill those things from the heart...not under law. The last one, about young women and purity. Well, we do draw a line in the sand for the sake of social well being, and so that all people may know what IS the line... and that's fair enough also.

But does it take a Christian to persuade you that

-respect for the older
-treat young men as brothers
-treat young women as sisters

is a good thing?

I think that because of us losing our soul and spiritual connection to the Almighty, we have become selfish, and self absorbed. So, perhaps there is a point where we need a divine prod to realize those thing are important.

Boazy, I recall that when I was growing up it was quite common to hear derogatory comments about "half casts". That people of other races were ok but the half casts tended to get the worst traits of their parents races.

Is that a line in the sand that you are sad has been crossed or a particular piece of bigitory which thankfully is largely behind us?

Just as we need care moving forward we need care clinging to the past. I'd rather risk allowing adults the freedom to make their own choices than risk clinging to vile restrictions which brought unnecessary misery to people.

The line in the sand in regard to sexual activity is about consenting adults. It's not about 9 year olds despite your often expressed focus on them.

R0bert

"but not so much because of the age of the girl... its more because of the age of the MAN.."

BD, thats this week, last week was different :)

You do what so many religious do, take one little verse in the
bible somewhere and use it to suit your agenda.

Now lets look at what the bible says about marriage etc:
Its a real free for all! I can take on a number of wives,
sleep with the maid if the wife won't fall pregnant, etc.
etc.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ofe_bibl.htm

So you can make it up as you go along, just quote a different
verse. Thats how they justified slavery for years and many
others things.

In old times age was never the big issue in marriage, it was
about resources. Women starved if a man could not provide
food for them and the offspring. Still today, look at what
American society (deeply religious btw) said when a young
Anna Nicole Smith married a 90 year old oil billionaire.
What a great catch! She became a star!

Thats exactly why old fellas like you still tend to perve
on young birds and women still like a man with money.
Its part of our genetic history.