(June 22, 2015 at 3:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, that is ok.

I never claimed that age of consent is an objectively moral thing.

Reflect carefully on what you just OKed.

All these ancient examples aren't about age of consent. They're about forced marriage. Girls being sold like cattle to men they never seen before in their lives.

(June 22, 2015 at 11:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 6:13 am)Starvald Demelain Wrote: A Catholic believes that losing your mind on a pedophile during the molestation of your own child is an immoral action? Forgive me if I don't gasp in surprise.

You have to remember that to me, the objective act is not the same as the person's culpability. They are 2 different things. I know you see them as one and the same, and that may be why you are having such a hard time fathoming why I think what I do.

While I believe that the objective act of killing a person outside of self defense is an inherently immoral action, I do believe that there are factors that play into a person's culpability. A person's culpability can be lessened, or completely eliminated.

In the case Becca has laid out to me, I would say this woman should be considered innocent by reason of insanity, and that her culpability of the act is eliminated given the circumstances and her mental state.

Does that make more sense?

Hard time? No. I understand your need for mental gymnastics; it's a workaround the whole "I lay my morality at the feet of a monstrous book" thing.

Good luck with that.

I'm thinking CL's opinion would be different if the 30-year-old fucking a 12-year-old was not in the Holy Family.

(June 22, 2015 at 11:58 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: While I believe that the objective act of killing a person outside of self defense is an inherently immoral action, I do believe that there are factors that play into a person's culpability. A person's culpability can be lessened, or completely eliminated.

So, "The devil made me do it" would remove culpability from one's actions?

Personally, drunk, high, insane, retarded, motivated, possessed, poor upbringing, religious, following the orders of same or whatever 'extenuating' circumstance there may be does not remove culpability for their action. They must be removed from society to protect same from further transgressions. Even "self-defense" is a two-edged sword as we only have circumstantial evidence and the 'word' of the survivor in a lot of cases.

(June 22, 2015 at 3:07 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Are you....serious this time?

Oh my god. Are you really saying that from your standpoint fucking a 12yo is ok?

Of course she is, according to the Chatechism of the Catholic Church one can legally obtain marriage at 14 for girls. They do have the proviso individual bishops can set this higher if it so pleases them. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3Y.HTM

It was previously lower than that, although it was increased after the sex abuse cases came out. I think before then the age of consent for sex in the Vatican state was 12 for boys and 9 for girls, can't swear to that one though.

(June 22, 2015 at 3:58 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking CL's opinion would be different if the 30-year-old fucking a 12-year-old was not in the Holy Family.

That evil moral relativism strikes again eh? This is what I find so fascinating about Catholicism compared to other branches of Christianity; they've proclaimed so many things heresies over the years they've literally rendered themselves impotent without an escape route. The only way to not openly "break" infallibility now is to do nothing and say nothing.

Holy shit Metis. that's sick!

(June 22, 2015 at 3:32 pm)abaris Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 3:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Yes, that is ok.

I never claimed that age of consent is an objectively moral thing.

Reflect carefully on what you just OKed.

All these ancient examples aren't about age of consent. They're about forced marriage. Girls being sold like cattle to men they never seen before in their lives.

Forced is wrong, yes. I don't think this was the case with Mary and Joseph. Unlike morals, I believe the age of consent is subjective, at least to a certain point. I don't believe there is a hard line there.

(June 22, 2015 at 4:22 pm)Neimenovic Wrote: Holy shit Metis. that's sick!

I find it disgusting Neimenovic but I do understand why this is so.

Consider it like this, I was doing a study of Tibet prior to the Chinese communist invasion where the average age for a girl marrying was nine. The average life expectancy for a pesant girl was around 25 years. If they didn't want to die out and have enough children that at least two out of fourteen survived they had to start very early.

Many parts of Africa and more rural parts of South America are in the same situation today, and the Catholic Church ministers to many people with life spans below 30. It's....Horrible, but that's how it is there. If they didn't start cranking them out at fourteen they'd probably go extinct.

I despise it, but I don't blame the Catholics for that one.

As for the age of consent perviously being so low for sex not marriage I can't explain that, a possible quirk of the legal system during the formation of the Vatican from the Italian Kingdom? Perhaps a deliberate attempt to stifle legal cases against the holy see (can't be done for pedophillia it if it's legal where the diplomat is from?). No idea.

(June 22, 2015 at 3:58 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking CL's opinion would be different if the 30-year-old fucking a 12-year-old was not in the Holy Family.

The belief is that they never actually had sex.

(June 22, 2015 at 4:29 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(June 22, 2015 at 3:58 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I'm thinking CL's opinion would be different if the 30-year-old fucking a 12-year-old was not in the Holy Family.

The belief is that they never actually had sex.

and that somehow makes a 30yo man marrying a 12yo ok?