Well....the Bible says people arn't supposed to have sex until they are married.
So age isn't really the question. It was supposed to be between a man and his wife. And back when man was created, they lived for alot longer then we do now. 100 years old was still young.
I do understand that the sex drive is probably the strongest drive mankind has. I know....remember, i'm a man (and once was a horny teenager).
Man's sin caused all the problems.
Teen pregnancy is still a huge problem in society today.
Do i know it's hard to say "no?' Yes. i KNOW that.
And years back, younger people DID marry. They were probably alot more mature then today's teens. Most boys were working farms, or factories when today the same aged kids are in school. They had to learn responsibilty at a VERY young age. And life span for kids 100 years ago isn't what it is now. Diseases that we can fight today with modern drugs killed off alot of people before they got into their 60's.
Heck, had they not known how to fix my heart last year, i doubt i would be here now.
Even with them "fixing" it, i still have heart disease, and will till i finally do die. They can't cure it. They just bought me some extra time.

---

Whatever turns you on. I knew that would get ya, though. It's almost like I can read you like a book. =P



Again, I never said I knew anyone. I just called it as I saw it, given the information I had.

---

Where? I've asked this question of so many evangelicals and they have yet to point me to a verse.



Assuming you take the Bible literally, of course (which the writers of the Bible themselves did not in many places). But do you really think people waited 100 years to have sex even if they were living 900 years? The population of the world would have grown at a minuscule pace and the human race would probably have devolved into a catastrophic state of constant warfare. (There has been interesting historical and anthropological work correlating a society's violence rate with its rate of unmarried young men.)



So? I've never met a man whose sex drive was stronger than that of the average woman. I know mine isn't. :P



Why? Historically, most children have been born to teenage mothers. Why is it such a bad thing? The only reason I can think of is young people in this culture aren't being trained and expected to act like responsible young adults as they are in other cultures. If anything, teen pregnancy is a very good thing, because it indicates human bodies are acting according to design and we're maximizing positive infant/maternal outcomes (assuming these mothers aren't in poverty, of course).



They should be even today. One of the primary causes of teenage rebellion is that parents prevent teenagers from doing what they most want to do -- go on great quests, fight valorous battles, slay dragons. If teens were allowed to be something more than useless, overgrown children, there would be a lot less teenage angst. The number-one complaint I hear from teenagers is that they feel powerless and useless. They have limitless energy and drive -- they want to accomplish great works.



This is a statistical truth but a factual falsity. Walk through any old cemetery and you'll see that if people made it past early childhood, they lived exactly as long as they do today: 75 or 80 years. The reason why lifespan was statistically shorter back then is that the infant mortality rate was so high; therefore, the mean age at death was lower. In reality, though, people who survived infancy were living pretty much as long as they do now. (In fact, I just read an article indicating that the average lifespan in the United States is slowly declining again.)



True, though it was the infants and young children who were hardest hit.

I'm still not sure what bearing these arguments have on the question of morality, though. 🙂

---

Several of you people have misunderstood Zombieslayer's point. Whether or not you want to agree that parents should be responsible for their children's actions, the fact remains that in this culture, they are. That is to say, they are legally liable for actions taken by their children. Legal liability and moral responsibility are obviously not always the same thing.

---

I'm sorry, but a parent legally responsible if their child murders someone? A specific scenario Zombie brought up? Precedent? I'm no legal expert, but that smells of horse crap... Just not 100% sure where it's coming from 😛

Well Rourke, seriously, type in the computer search about the Bible a sex, and you will see more examples of what you should and shouldn't do then you can count.
If you purposely don't WANT to see it, you can turn a blind eye to it, and ignore it. That's your perogative.
As far as teens making good parents......i don't know where you live that teens are great parents. I sure don't see that here in Wisconsin.
Just because their bodies are "ripe" to reproduce doesn't mean they will make good parents.
I'm trying to understand where you are coming from, but it really seems out in left field.
I haven't seen much proof of teens having sex like wild animals as leading to good results.
Yeah, it DOES create jobs........for the abortion clinics. And creates the next generation of "if it feels good, do it" types.
I just don't see that as anything positive.

---

Bingo!

The problem with teenagers today is that their parents treat them like retards. Teens are a hell of a lot smarter than people realize. I do some side work as an assistant Sound Engineer. I'm working with teens all the time. They freaking amaze me with their talents, goals, drive, and ambition. I can't believe what I'm hearing a lot of times.

So when we're taking a lunch break, sometimes we'll talk life, politics, etc. Then they amaze me even more. I can't believe how smart some of these teens are.

Porforis - S***! I was wrong. I thought there was legal precedent. Turns out you're not legally obligated to your children. They can go on killing sprees and the only thing that will be dragged down is your name. They'll serve the time.

That doesn't mean you're not morally obligated to take care of them until they're out of the house. You are legally responsibility for their food, clothing, shelter, and education until they're 18 though.

---

I think the concept that parents are responsible for their children's actions applies more to torts (civil liabilities) than to criminal acts. For example, if a child runs his bike into a car, creating an insurance claim, the parents' insurance will be dinged and their rate will go up. (I speak from personal experience here. 😉 ) Likewise, if a child commits credit-card fraud, the parents will have to repay the spurious charges.

Now if a 14-year-old commits murder, he may be charged personally as a juvenile or in some jurisdictions even as an adult.

---

Ah, thank you Non. That's where I was confused.

I readily admit I don't know much about laws (other than don't talk to cops and cops are a-holes) but I could have sworn I heard plenty of cases of parents getting sued over acts their children have done.

That's what I was trying to say.

---

Yes, lawsuits arise from civil, not criminal, acts. So that makes sense.

---