(April 18, 2016 at 7:37 pm)AJW333 Wrote:(April 18, 2016 at 6:52 pm)abaris Wrote: And you would be entirely wrong in that assumption, since what we consider children now was a totally accepted age for marriage back then and far into the Middle Ages. Not only with jews, christians or muslims, but also with Greeks and Romans.I'm not in favour of child or adolescent sex or marriage, but I would be interested to know from an evolutionary point of view, why it is wrong for biologically able people to engage in sexual activity before the government-approved age. If you have sexual maturity, why is it "wrong" to use it? Doesn't natural selection indicate that sex at 12 or 13 is normal?
You might do well to actually look up the ages of brides to wealthy families in the Middle Ages. The best documented period for these kinds of practices.
What we do biologically because we can does not make it something we should condone as a society. Yes, in a time when disease and other privations made it hard to survive past 30 (and often, to full adulthood), it would be beneficial to allow for reproduction at a young age like 12-13. That does not mean that, given our understanding of the development of the brain and of child psychology, that we must therefore ignore the damage that can be done to children by the actions of adults-- damage they may not realize is occurring, at the time, because of the lack of brain development (and thus decision-making ability) that they have available when young.
You are the only person in this entire conversation who genuinely thinks that because something was Naturally Selected for the human race, in the past hundreds of thousands of years of our evolutionary development, that it's a good thing for our society.
Xenophobia (tribalism) and hatred of "The Other" is wired into our genes, for the same reason--we developed as a tribal species--but it does not mean we should be trying to harm one another on the basis of their differences. We play sports like football, instead.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.