Our culture is not another culture.
Children live different lives here.
The difference would be: How do those acts affect children's lives in those cultures compared to with how it affects children in our culture?
I don't know about those cultures.
Sexual molestation or rape of a child in our culture proves detrimental to children who are victims. It seems to benefit just one person, the perpetrator.
Intimacy is about mutuality, not power. Having sex with a child or molesting a child in our culture in inherently a power issue.
What Korg is touching upon here is the difference between a absolutist attitude and a relativist attitude as well as pluralism.
You might as well stop in your tracks because it's not the content you are arguing but the frame of mind.
Those who think that sexual relations with children is wrong have all gotten down to the point where they either assert
1.
You know it's wrong, there is no way that it isn't wrong
or
2. Regardless of what other people in other countries think we think it is wrong here so it is wrong.
What you should now look at is the source of the belief that molesting children is wrong and compare that belief to other cultures. Why is molesting children wrong, because they cannot give consent, is that issue? Or when you boil down to the core is it more about taking the innocence from something? In other cultures honor killings are used to restore honor and pride back in the family on the same basis that by misbehaving a woman was losing her innocence, getting dirt on her dress and as a result spreading onto the family.
You can't deny that other cultures are entirely just as valid as our culture is, and why would you think Greece and these other cultures would have sexual relations with children? I bet when it all boils down to it you all would come to the conclusion that because back then people were stupid/didn't know better/ culture was corrupt. But how is that owning up to any possible flaws in your own logic? Honestly.
Inflexibility in opinions is absolutism and you need to consider that what is right here may or may not be right somewhere else...can you really declare universal rights or wrong? Absolutely not because there are always situational circumstances when you have moral dilemmas that make you question the rights or wrong; example, a kid who is religious who doesn't want to go get cancer treatment and may die because they aren't going to, and now we are faced with whether to take away their right to practice their religion or to instate the law and have the child taken care of medically.
So think about that for a moment. Really these arguments are silly, you all are not covering your bases well enough, it's on one moral framework and you can't argue two moral frameworks against each other, it's constant metal rubbing against one another and neither get worn down.