Sexual Orientation

[Violet]

The kind of harm that can be caused by a broken homosexual relationship is different than criminal harm, where an injury is recognized that can be and should be punished. Emotional hurt because your gay boyfriend dumped you is not a crime, whereas abuse is simply because that kind of hurt can cause devastating consequences.

I've seen some pretty fantastic harms in gay relationships. I hope, for your sake, that you do not get to see it.

It's identical to the fantastic harms in straight relationships.

These are identical to the fantastic harms in child-adult relationships.

Law in general is concerned with creating two things: the broadest possible protections for everyone within the boundaries of a country over which the government has a legal monopoly on the use of force, and a minimum standard for living in a society that applies to everyone so that everyone can get along. If we were to try and create law based solely on the moral inclinations of mere individuals, that would be a nightmare.

Law seems to vary across countries, I've noticed. 'The broadest possible protections'? As if...

And, it would be no more a nightmare than this world. We are a world of individuals... when comes the time that such is recognized: we'll have a very interesting world.

Everyone get along...? Funny, that would go entirely against many people's desires in this current law-full world.

"As soon as laws are necessary for men, they are no longer fit for freedom." - Pythagoras

Criminal law, and specifically criminal punishment, has five possible objectives: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and restoration. Punishing people for touching young kids indefinitely accomplishes all of those objectives with the possible exception of rehabilitation because a pedophile will always remain a pedophile no matter what. Registering sex offenders, on the other hand, is a civil law punishment that focuses on victim compensation by ensuring that these people are never anywhere near areas where children are known to congregate, thus making up for the harm that they have done as a pedophile. Lifetime sex offender registration is also not an unconstitutional ex post facto law nor a cruel and unusual punishment for this reason. SEE:

Your head is so full of lawspeak that I feel you must be deeply satisfied with the status of law within your nation.

I am not so easily satisfied, friend.

Again, it is well established in psychology that children in general do not have a developed sense of executive function, which is important in establishing and prioritizing activities, nor do they have a developed sense of consequences. This is mainly because the frontal lobe, which is responsible for those areas of cognition, is not even close to done growing when a person is a child. With the exception (again) of age closeness, the law has the age of consent line right where it is to establish a firm and universally applicable standard.

Establishment fallacy... sigh... it never ends. Listen here: that <insertwhoever> has established that 5 servings of bread should be eaten per day does not mean either of the following: 1, that it is true... 2, that what they've established matters to me.

Stop arguing about what others have established... and tell me what you think, and show me the evidence behind what you think. I'm not speaking to "whoever has established whatever"... but I am speaking to you. Please understand the distinction.

...

I'm not disputing the scie-actually, yes I am. I believe you'll find that experience is the core contributor to developing a need to prioritize, and that children are considerably more gifted at sensing consequences than you seem to believe. I'm not sure if you've ever seen children at play

There are a number of flaws with the noted studies... one in particular being that we've little way to observe a human adult that does not have the experience of making mistakes and living as a major factor in whether or not this area of the brain develops (comatose since 2-5 years after childbirth, cloned, imprisoned in utter silent darkness for all of these years... it's not easy, and that last is not exactly ethically testable), and it is furthermore not clear whether or not the incredible risk-taking of young adulthood is in part affected greatly by freeing these "underdeveloped persons (almost all of them if it takes 18-25 years)" such that they are no longer held in check by parental guidance, and the thrillseeking adventures of such youth in large part caused by our societal practice at releasing our care into the world in batches of their peers.

... That's not all of the considerations that are scarce made when considering these specific studies, but what we're left with at the end of the day is that there's a region of the brain that develops as we mature into adulthood (you know... which is exactly what happens at puberty... which is still used as the arbitrary gating point by a number of cultures around the world and seems to work out okay to them?). I'm just not convinced that *this in particular* is "the line" by which we should gauge whether or not people have 'matured enough' to be considered 'adults' in whatever society...

And if it was? It would be at the minimum at 25... and we would be arguing that persons younger than 25 cannot consent, because their consenting isn't as informed as those of people older than they.

... And philosophically speaking, we could go considerably further with this.... but I somehow do not think you'd be listening by the end of it

It is for that reason that I, as a parent, would firmly tell my child who wants to have sex with an adult that under no circumstances would they be permitted to. Certainly not with a relative such as an aunt, uncle, or sibling either, because of the power disparity and because of the irreparable damage that it can do to a child's psyche and to a strictly familial relationship. I exclude cousin marriages in such places as Texas because legally that is NOT the definition of incest. I would still not encourage it and do not approve of it however.

Cool... and then you'll find that they'll probably do it anyway. Actually, you probably won't find that, because they know how busted they'll be if you do

Careful who you tru-ust~

---

Anyone ever read 'Time enough for love.' by Robert A Heinlein?
It's a sci-fi. He explores a lot of this stuff.
Great book.
Sorry for interrupting. :-)

Nope. I've never read it. Tell me about it

Ooh, have you ever read.... Lolita? It's a classic.