For those who want proof of the exodus

[Drich]

No disrespect intended kevin but your trying to keep your thinking inside the box your morality currently resides. What I was trying to do is to place you in a similar position that most Christians find themselves in. In that pop culture changes the definition of morality based on a stronger allegiance to 'science' than to God, or even tradition.

what you did was simply try and return to what you know/think your morality is currently based on. The whole point of this discussion is to ask what would you do if 'science' is used to prove that your/this generation's current system of morality is wrong/viewed as primitive as dark age church values.. If this is the case then Do you agree with the new science and condemn the current morality that says you can not have sex with children? and do you follow the trend to up hold pedophiles as the homosexuals currently are, (as being unfairly oppressed by society) or do you say like stimbo says that 'morality' is an absolute and what is right today was right yesterday and will be right tomorrow?

Non sequitur
the word your looking for is pheromones. no training needed. They are 'hardwired' for sex if certain elements are present, it is not a matter of consent. As you pointed out consent is a higher brain function they do not possess.

Then consent is a non issue. If all a dog or donkey needs to want to engage in intercourse are the proper pheromones/triggers and higher brain function is not a consideration then all is needed is to supply the animal what he wants and the decision is made. no training needed. the animal will earnestly want to have sex.

If it's an action made due to instinct based purely on a chemical response, then no, it's not consent.  Consent means having a conscious understanding of what's going on, including the ramifications.  Which is why no one (except you, apparently) considers a physiological response to stimuli as granting consent.  Again, people who are raped have orgasms.  That doesn't mean that, deep down, they actually liked what happened.

Again the point I was making is that you got the info you just parroted back through extensive studies, and you do not even question it. Why? because the information came to you through the proper channels people with 'higher learning' have been trained to trust.

I was asking What if 100 different reports/papers reversed what you currently quote, opening the door to sex with children? Would that be considered moral today (as stimbo put it) , simply because it is found to be 'moral' tomorrow? (meaning we are currently, unjustly oppressing pedophiles now by putting them in prison to be treated more harshly and raped because we today believe this crime is beyond immoral? but again believe so in error because what could be found in further study?)

In short, what if it becomes a proven scientific fact that children, or lets say certain children can indeed make an informed decision on sex, if.. lets say some area of the brain goes active.. let us then say it can physically and psychologically be proven that in 'Some' 10 year olds brains, that they have reached some trivial percentage/capacity needed that has been judged for this future society to be enough to consent to sex..

Given stimbo's claim that their is nothing immoral about ANY consensual sex. (given consent and context) it would be wrong to say sex with children is immoral, because as with Homosexuality their maybe a gene found that puts their pedophilic desire out of their sexual control.

Verse my original claim that pop culture defines morality, and what is immoral today will not always be moral tomorrow, and vise versa. which means morality will eventually spiral down out of control and at some point will include sex with children if society simply wants it bad enough. Without an absolute standard to keep it anchored. Like the bible.

which is correct?

You do realize that consent is just one reason why we don't have sex with children, and that I'm not Stimbo, right?  I was addressing your objections to Stimbo's statements, not necessarily agreeing with them in totality.

That said, children, from a physiological standpoint, aren't built to have sex with adults.  The pieces don't fit properly, and long term/permanent harm can occur.  

didn't think that one through huh?
You didn't draw any parallels between my set up and argument about pedophiles and the current homosexual 'revolution?' What if a gay gene is found some day, should pedophiles be treated any different than those who are programmed to genetically desire to have sex with members of the same sex?

What do you base your answer on? what is moral today?? what studies say today? again what happens when those studies say something different? How is that any different than what a pedophile would say or do if that behavior became legal?

Pedophilia is different because of the harm involved, you dolt.  That's a far cry from homosexuality, which harms no one.

The rest of what you wrote, frankly, isn't worth the effort.

You did not answer the questions I presented. I took the time to go line by line answering your response. I pose a question of morality to you. If you want me to keep putting in the effort I have with you, you need to answer this question. or like with drysand and Minnie I will only look to read every 4th or 5th post of yours.

If you want to play with the heavy hitters then you need to swing like you mean it when you are at bat, and not just go though the motions.