lo zio
International
- 24 October 2005
- Palermo
hitzlsperger retired?!?! holy shit he's younger than me! damn do i feel old right now. and clearely i need to follow football more closely.... i didn't even know he retired. anyway kudos to him for mustering the courage to come out in one of the biggest fortresses of homophoby such as football world. it must have been hard, but i'd like to think life will be a bit easier for him from now on.
of course it'll be a grand day when a homosexual won't even need to publicly express his sexual preferences, but we haven't reach that level of civility yet, so hats off to thomas.
Gerd, you raise an interesting topic (although perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss it in a separate thread), but in my (very personal) opinion u focus too much on the moral aspect. morality has indeed a variable definition, according to historical, geographical and cultural context, but the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia doesn't just lie in what a community is inclined to accept in a given time. there was a time indeed when paedophilia was not only tolerated but accepted and considered as normal (and this is still the case in some corners of the world); young girls were given in marriage as they were children and forced to procreate as soon as their physical development allowed. but that wasn't sex, nor love. that was legalized rape for the sake of reproduction.
the example u mentioned of course is completely different but then again, our laws against child abuse aren't just the reflection of our current concept of morality. their foundation can be found in logic, not just in morality.
your mate's wife says her will was never coaxed, and we can certainly trust her judgement on this NOW that she's an adult. but u can't trust a child's opinion on her free will, because she will not know better. when i was 12 i used to fall in love with a different girl everyday.... or at least that's what i thought. truth is, i didn't even know what love was at that time.
a 12 years old child's will is coaxed by definition..... it's coaxed by his\her ignorance, by his\her candour and naivety, by her lack of experience, by her unawareness. ignorance and unawareness prevent us from developing a "free will", so a 12, 13 or 14 years old child's will simply cannot be free. that's why it's our obligation (as adults, parents, as lawmakers) to protect our children... even from themselves.
i'm with gomito on this one: i don't blame a paedophile for his instincts.... like u said our sexual proclivities are out of our control. but i blame a paedohile who acts on his istincts, because if a man's sexual preferences are out of his control, his actions are not! refraining is always a choice.
and a man who doesn't control his instincts is not a man..... but a beast without free will (and he should be treated as such).
homosexualty is an entirely different matter. first of, homosexuality isn't just about sex (as is the case with paedophilia, zoophilia or necrophilia)..... it's about love. and love between 2 adults, capable of aware decisions and choices, should always be accepted, no matter their gender.
As for the topic concerning age of consent, why would that be relevant. There’s no scientific way to establish when a youngster develops the maturity required to be fully aware of the consequences of his social interactions, so each country makes its “guess”. and it's impossible to establish wich country "nailed" the exact age of consent, because each individual is different. having said that, our lawmakers can't simply give up and not set a limit, just because there's no way to find out a scientific threshold. so they all pick the age they find more appropriate.
and this doens't happen only in child abuse law. The same situation occurs with pretty much every law.... that still doesn’t change the underlying reason of the law itself (wich is what really matters).
take the ability to aquire a driver's license, for instance. every country sets its own minimum age to get one. american lawmakers thought a 16 years old is mature enough to drive responsibly, whereas italian lawmakers set their minimum age to 18. such differences don't change the underlying reason of theese laws ("youngsters are not mature nor aware enough to drive a car").
and it's not just about the minimum age to acquire a driver's license either. all our legislations on such indefinite thresholds are always slightly different: whether it's about the "mental competence" required to make a will, or the legal capacity to sign a contract, or the legal age to have sexual intercourse with an adult without that being labelled as "child abuse".... we always set our bars at different levels (as is our right, as sovereign states)...... that doesn't really matter. what should capture your attention is that, no matter where we set our bars and limits, we all set them.
of course it'll be a grand day when a homosexual won't even need to publicly express his sexual preferences, but we haven't reach that level of civility yet, so hats off to thomas.
Gerd, you raise an interesting topic (although perhaps it would be more appropriate to discuss it in a separate thread), but in my (very personal) opinion u focus too much on the moral aspect. morality has indeed a variable definition, according to historical, geographical and cultural context, but the difference between homosexuality and paedophilia doesn't just lie in what a community is inclined to accept in a given time. there was a time indeed when paedophilia was not only tolerated but accepted and considered as normal (and this is still the case in some corners of the world); young girls were given in marriage as they were children and forced to procreate as soon as their physical development allowed. but that wasn't sex, nor love. that was legalized rape for the sake of reproduction.
the example u mentioned of course is completely different but then again, our laws against child abuse aren't just the reflection of our current concept of morality. their foundation can be found in logic, not just in morality.
your mate's wife says her will was never coaxed, and we can certainly trust her judgement on this NOW that she's an adult. but u can't trust a child's opinion on her free will, because she will not know better. when i was 12 i used to fall in love with a different girl everyday.... or at least that's what i thought. truth is, i didn't even know what love was at that time.
a 12 years old child's will is coaxed by definition..... it's coaxed by his\her ignorance, by his\her candour and naivety, by her lack of experience, by her unawareness. ignorance and unawareness prevent us from developing a "free will", so a 12, 13 or 14 years old child's will simply cannot be free. that's why it's our obligation (as adults, parents, as lawmakers) to protect our children... even from themselves.
i'm with gomito on this one: i don't blame a paedophile for his instincts.... like u said our sexual proclivities are out of our control. but i blame a paedohile who acts on his istincts, because if a man's sexual preferences are out of his control, his actions are not! refraining is always a choice.
and a man who doesn't control his instincts is not a man..... but a beast without free will (and he should be treated as such).
homosexualty is an entirely different matter. first of, homosexuality isn't just about sex (as is the case with paedophilia, zoophilia or necrophilia)..... it's about love. and love between 2 adults, capable of aware decisions and choices, should always be accepted, no matter their gender.
As for the topic concerning age of consent, why would that be relevant. There’s no scientific way to establish when a youngster develops the maturity required to be fully aware of the consequences of his social interactions, so each country makes its “guess”. and it's impossible to establish wich country "nailed" the exact age of consent, because each individual is different. having said that, our lawmakers can't simply give up and not set a limit, just because there's no way to find out a scientific threshold. so they all pick the age they find more appropriate.
and this doens't happen only in child abuse law. The same situation occurs with pretty much every law.... that still doesn’t change the underlying reason of the law itself (wich is what really matters).
take the ability to aquire a driver's license, for instance. every country sets its own minimum age to get one. american lawmakers thought a 16 years old is mature enough to drive responsibly, whereas italian lawmakers set their minimum age to 18. such differences don't change the underlying reason of theese laws ("youngsters are not mature nor aware enough to drive a car").
and it's not just about the minimum age to acquire a driver's license either. all our legislations on such indefinite thresholds are always slightly different: whether it's about the "mental competence" required to make a will, or the legal capacity to sign a contract, or the legal age to have sexual intercourse with an adult without that being labelled as "child abuse".... we always set our bars at different levels (as is our right, as sovereign states)...... that doesn't really matter. what should capture your attention is that, no matter where we set our bars and limits, we all set them.
Last edited:
