Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 you must have missed discussion of the Winchester line. I guess I did...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Besides the obvious, the sex offender comparison doesn't work for a few reasons.... 1. If the SO is truly repentant, then he went to the authorities and likely served time. He would also be registered as a SO in the state. Therefore, would you hire him, he'd not only be breaking the law - and in a way I'd question his repentance because he's not accepting the consequences of his actions (an obvious consequence being: he can't be near children anymore) - but you'd be breaking the law. Also, if he was genuinely sorry for his past crime(s), he wouldn't WANT to break the law again and therefore a, wouldn't look for a position working with children and/or b, wouldn't accept a position working with children. You would also put him at risk for being caught by the authorities. And if you helped him get around the law - kept things "hush hush" - you'd end up in a load of trouble yourself. 2. Of course, either way, it would simply be impossible for him to get this job even IF you were totally unaware of his criminal background because SO are kept under very close scrutiny. Why would he take the risk, knowing that it's more likely than not he'd end up back in court? 3. If he was genuinely repentant but did NOT serve time, i.e. the authorities aren't aware, and confessed to you his past crime(s), don't you have the responsibility of reporting him? 4. A lot of sex offenders, after they serve time, are "released" but often placed, sometimes indefinitely, in facilities that house sex offenders - while they did the time, they're just not deemed safe for society, and are in a sense involuntarily committed. Edited for clarification. Edited July 20, 2013 by HisChildForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Besides the obvious, the sex offender comparison doesn't work for a few reasons.... 1. If the SO is truly repentant, then he went to the authorities and likely served time. He would also be registered as a SO in the state. Therefore, would you hire him, he'd not only be breaking the law - and in a way I'd question his repentance because he's not accepting the consequences of his actions (an obvious consequence being: he can't be near children anymore) - but you'd be breaking the law. Also, if he was genuinely sorry for his past crime(s), he wouldn't WANT to break the law again and therefore a, wouldn't look for a position working with children and/or b, wouldn't accept a position working with children. You would also put him at risk for being caught by the authorities. And if you helped him get around the law - kept things "hush hush" - you'd end up in a load of trouble yourself. 2. Of course, either way, it would simply be impossible for him to get this job even IF you were totally unaware of his criminal background because SO are kept under very close scrutiny. Why would he take the risk, knowing that it's more likely than not he'd end up back in court? 3. If he was genuinely repentant but did NOT serve time, i.e. the authorities aren't aware, and confessed to you his past crime(s), don't you have the responsibility of reporting him? 4. A lot of sex offenders, after they serve time, are "released" but often placed, sometimes indefinitely, in facilities that house sex offenders - while they did the time, they're just not deemed safe for society, and are in a sense involuntarily committed. Edited for clarification. Sounds like these laws are holding a person's past againt him/her and we should change them, if we follow Havok's postings. Suppose he's in a country/jurisdiction where there are no registries and it's not against the law? Edited July 20, 2013 by Norseman82 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Sounds like these laws are holding a person's past againt him/her and we should change them, if we follow Havok's postings. Suppose he's in a country/jurisdiction where there are no registries and it's not against the law? No civilized society permits rape and molestation... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havok579257 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Again, Havok's words (with substitutions to show how his words would apply to the other situations): Unless Havok would allow a pedophile or Hitler to babysit his kids, in which case I will stand corrected. Otherwise, Havok should get off Polskieserce's case. continue to stick your fingers in your ear and say blah blah blah all you want, your choice. Everyone here who has commented about this analogy says they are not comparable and to try again. So either we are all wrong and your the only one who could be right or your wrong. Since I know you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong I will answer your question like you would. So this 20 year old girl wants to watch my children and she is a sex offender. Her crime is she got drunk and urinated in public. Due to this she is labeled as a sex offender. She explains the situation that she got drunk which was a mistake and made a bad choice by urinating in public. Due to this she is label a sex offender(also for your little scenario sex offenders are now by law allowed around children. You ran for congress and got the laws changed so sex offenders can now watch children. Why you did this, who knows.). Other than this one instance she is a very morally upright catholic who I personally know(since unless I personally know you, you can't watch my children no matter what unless your the Pope). So yes, I would allow this women to watch my children and be fine with it. There is an answer in the same vain of your questions. Happy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 No civilized society permits rape and molestation... I was referring to where there are no registries and it's not against the law to hire such a convict after he/she has done his/her time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Norseman82 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 continue to stick your fingers in your ear and say blah blah blah all you want, your choice. Everyone here who has commented about this analogy says they are not comparable and to try again. So either we are all wrong and your the only one who could be right or your wrong. Since I know you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong I will answer your question like you would. So this 20 year old girl wants to watch my children and she is a sex offender. Her crime is she got drunk and urinated in public. Due to this she is labeled as a sex offender. She explains the situation that she got drunk which was a mistake and made a bad choice by urinating in public. Due to this she is label a sex offender(also for your little scenario sex offenders are now by law allowed around children. You ran for congress and got the laws changed so sex offenders can now watch children. Why you did this, who knows.). Other than this one instance she is a very morally upright catholic who I personally know(since unless I personally know you, you can't watch my children no matter what unless your the Pope). So yes, I would allow this women to watch my children and be fine with it. There is an answer in the same vain of your questions. Happy? What about an actual pedophile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 Pick a voluntary sin. This isn't difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HisChildForever Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 I was referring to where there are no registries and it's not against the law to hire such a convict after he/she has done his/her time. Oh, my bad. Sex offenders - not the "urinating-in-public-type" but the "raping women/men-and-touching-children-type" - are sadly next to impossible to rehabilitate, whether or not they're sincere about changing. The subject is just too complex to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicsAreKewl Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) I find this post to be very rude. If there is anyone who needs therapy, it is you, because with this rudeness and crankiness at age 25 I fear for anyone whom you will minister to. "Back in the day" virginity was a higher priority than it is today. Notice also that back then we did not have the high rates of promiscuity and cohabitation as we do today (or at least it was not as open or socially accepted). Correlation? I think so in the sense that we have lowered our standards on sexual morality. It's sadder that this lowering of standards has crept into the religious as well; however, it was estimated that the majority of clergy subscribed to the Arian heresy in the 300s, so I guess nothing should surprise me. There was a huge taboo against sexual promiscuity/divorce/anything related to female pleasure back in the day. Would you rather that unmarried people hide their sex lives in their respective closets? What's more healthy, a trusting relationship between two consenting adults who have both admitted to having sex with over 20+ people or one in which both parties have sexed 3 or less people but feel like they'll be judged/unloved if they admit this to their significant other? We were made to eat and "have sex with" everything. It's human nature. Also, your other post about pedophiles seemed to indicate that non-virgins don't live up to your gold standard of marriage. Pedophiles will have problems around kids. Your post suggests that non-virgins will have similar problems with their marriage. This is simply not true. Edited July 20, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 There was a huge taboo against sexual promiscuity/divorce/anything related to female pleasure back in the day. Would you rather that unmarried people hide their sex lives in their respective closets? What's more healthy, a trusting relationship between two consenting adults who have both admitted to having sex with over 20+ people or one in which both parties have sexed 3 or less people but feel like they'll be judged/unloved if they admit this to their significant other? We were made to eat and "have sex with" everything. It's human nature. Also, your other post about pedophiles seemed to indicate that non-virgins don't live up to your gold standard of marriage. Pedophiles will have problems around kids. Your post suggests that non-virgins will have similar problems with their marriage. This is simply not true. Oh come on man! If someone actually has acted on having sexual urges toward an adult member of (usually) the opposite sex, you know they could have similar urges again, and even risk acting on it! We cannot have married people tempted to have and enjoy sex. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 With sex offenders, there are also cases of 15 year olds who had sex vs. a 19 year old and a 17 year old (19 year old committed statutory rape because the 19 year old is over 18 and the 17 year old is not). Such a person I would trust more around my kids than someone who enjoyed fondling a 2 year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Era Might Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 (edited) Norseman, This topic is obviously your crusade in life, but I don't know what you hope to accomplish. You see yourself as a remnant, the last of a dying breed. The church does not require anyone to be a virgin to marry. So your standard is just your personal preference, nothing more. Nobody is required by the church to follow your course of action, and never have been, so there is no reason to "convert" anyone to your position. Generally, the test of something is whether other people like it. Christianity started with a few disciples, and eventually it grew. Why? Because people said, "Hey, I like this stuff about peace, joy, charity, faith, sacrifice, brotherhood." In other words, they found the message attractive, and they joined it. Obviously, women have not found you attractive, and so you remain single. That's none of my business, and I don't care about your personal life. Simply pointing out that if you are going to hang on to your standard, as is your right, then accept that you are one in a billion, and either accept that fact and suffer it patiently, or change your standard. If women like what you're selling, then you will find a wife. It's nobody's fault if women don't like what you're selling. Maybe you have to die alone, in witness to your standard. Maybe then women will get the point. More likely they'll move on to another guy who they do find attractive. There is really nothing to debate here. Nobody says you can't have your standard. But keep it to yourself, and to the women you approach to try and convince of your standard. Obviously, it's not advice you want, you're convinced of your standard. There are groups that believe like you do. They too believe they are a remnant in their particular beliefs like the Amish, or the Mormons, What do they do? They find other like-minded people and live together. You haven't been able to find another like-minded person...that's a signal that women don't share your remnant views. They are under no obligation (in the church) to change their standard, and you are under no obligation to change yours. Again, there's nothing to debate. Either accept that you are going to find very few people who find your standard attractive, or change it. I say all of this as honest advice, because you come across as frustrated, and that's generally not an attractive quality. Sometimes, when you are massively alone in your views, it's a cue that the problem is with you, not with everyone else. That's especially true in dating. Edited July 20, 2013 by Era Might Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 As to the original topic, as someone who was a virgin, someone who thinks this way about women who have been abused or assaulted, wouldn't have been good enough for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arfink Posted July 20, 2013 Share Posted July 20, 2013 After reading 7 pages of this croutons, this is all I have to add: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts