pedophiles going public

And you decide it's harmful by which measure? Because you say so?
But as a side, the age of consent laws have been put in place because psychiatrists say a teens brain isn't fully developed yet and teens are incapable of proper decisions.
But that won't stop teens from having sex. Puberty tells them they want sex. What do they do with all that pent up sexual desire many teens have? Did you have sex before 18 yrs old?

And moral relativsm isn't necessarily a decay.
What are you basing morality on? Why is your morals the guiding factor for the world?

 

You are trying to apply modern knowledge and morals to history. A man trying to have sex with a five to eight yo was seen as doing something wrong because the younger was still seen as a child. But once puberty was reached they were considered adults, and there was nothing wrong with having sex with another adult. We know more now about maturity and how sex with those under 16 can have major negative effects, but back then that knowledge was not there and thus it was not an issue of a lack or morality.

 

Lowest age of consent on record was 7 in Delaware. Most of the rise in age of consent laws started around the beginning of the 19th century and have only been going up.

 

Yet, by law, they are able to drive the car. And their sexual puberty is telling them to have sex.

 

Not necessarily true. Pedophiles are defined by their sexual attraction to children, not by their actions. A person can learn, through their own sexual abuse, to sexually abuse others, but that doesn't automatically give them the attraction. It's simply the actions or reactions they've been conditioned to make. This is why child sexual molestation/assault is against the law but pedophila is not. Not all pedophiles attack children (despite their impulses), and not all child sexual assaults are the result of pedophila.

 

I can say that it is most certainly harmful, and the teen pregnancy stats prove it.

 

No, that is what YOU are doing.

 

Not to mention, most of those girls were around 17 years old. I've heard that the stories of girls being married off by their family as very young teens are highly exaggerated. It did happen sometimes, but teen girls were a valuable asset to have around the household, and they were learning their household skills and stuff, and their marriage partners would have had to be approved by their fathers. Most people were still not sending their little girls to be married off at 12 years old.

 

Yes, this is not an area for partisanship since children come first and foremost.

 

I'm sure true and known about pedophiles were shunned back in the old times too. They are simply social weirdos.

 

Was it "insanity" when the SCOTUS pointed out that blacks and whites had the same right to marry each other?

Yes or no?

 

Depended upon the social strata as well. Poorer families had their kids longer unless there was an over abundance. Wealthier families made their contracts sometimes even before the child was in puberty and then executed it once puberty was reached. Also remember back then marriage was more for business and property, and in certain strata, status, than it was about love. We can't try to apply our modern thinking to theirs.

 

That is true, but a lot of times in those arranged marriages, they were both young. Not a 12-year-old girl getting married off to a 50-year-old man or something. I know it happened, but it wasn't all that common as people might think.

 

The process is to impeach a supreme court justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Chase

 

You are confused or willfully ignorant about the dictatoral power of unelected liberal judges

 

Going by puberty is not a good idea either. Some girls might start their menstruation as early as 9 or 10 years old. It is normally around ages 12 or 13, which is STILL a child. Nobody is going to convince me that a 12-year-old is the equivalent to an adult because she has her period and has breasts. Other girls may not start their menstruation until they around 15 or even 16 years old. This is especially true of girls who are very physically active and involved in sports.

 

As a woman, I can tell you that when I started my menstruation, I did not suddenly get more mature. It was just a PITA thing I had to deal with.

 

Yes, you are taking what I posted out of context but that is understandable since you have Landcover on ignore.

I agree with you that pedophiles can be victimised for just expressing themselves even if they haven't committed any molestation of children. I had a debate with one who was looking for treatment before he offended because he didn't want to hurt children. It was constructive and informative which is why I am open to discuss the issue with anyone in the hopes that it might mean that a child is not harmed.

The responses in this thread are testimony to how they are treated even if they haven't offended.

The problem is that if they are treated that way after they admit to their perversion then they are not going to tell anyone and repressed perversions are not a good thing. It is better that they be allowed to admit to having this problem and be given treatment instead.

 

Liberals are far more conformanist than theyvadmitbtonbeing

If it is politically correct to believe something that relieves them of the burden of having to think for themselves

And its easy for a liberal pollster to oversample people who agree with the liberal storyline

 

Inane baiting and taunting again because you have nothing constructive to contribute to the debate?

 

Inane non sequitur!

 

Asinine attempt to derail the thread.

 

Why am I not in the least surprised to see the alleged "mensa mind" finding "common ground" with the pedophile advocate out of sheer desperation to score petty partisan points on an entirely nonpartisan topic?

 

If that is what you are allegedly doing then it is, to quote your own words, only happening in your own mind!

 

Out of context attempt at flamebaiting.