The Consent Argument

[Saint Frankenstein]

I was not referring to that as a theory.

Then what are you talking about?

 

[McBell]

You do think a lot of things that you agree with is common knowledge, and oftentimes, it's just common knowledge with those who believe and promote it. While, it's not that common.

Interesting.
What is it you believe 'flower of her age' means?

 

[Left Coast]

Did i say my answer is dependent on your answer? No I did not say that at all.
What I said was, you would get the answer from your answer.

But I didn't.

Thank you for your answer.
First, let me just highlight this. "The harm that can be done when a person doesn't give informed consent to sex... It causes deep psychological (if not physical) trauma that can stay with them for life."

Let me put that more concise. When persons do not give informed consent to sex, it harms them psychologically (if not physically).
Therefore, informed consent to sex is okay, because it does not cause harm.
Connecting to the OP...
If two informed adults give consent to sex, no harm is done - adding your bit - as long as they are not cheating on a mate.
Is that correct?

Yep.

Not getting into what's informed, because up to this day, they can't come to a decision on what age group fits in there.
Let's answer your question.
Okay. So... People decide who is informed. People decide who are too young to be informed, or have the ability to give consent. People then make decisions, set law..., because they want to protect persons from harm.

There is your answer.

Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

What harm is done from the two adults having consensual, non-adulterous sex?

However, understandably, sometimes when we think things are as clear as day, some people still don't get it.
So to be clear... God decides that humans are 'uninformed'. God decides they are too inexperience, and do not have the ability to to direct their own step. God thus gives laws in order to protect the human creature, from harm.
Why does God have that right though? Unlike man, who has to learn the hard way, and still finds himself learning the hard way... which shows he still hasn't learned, God knows. He knows our makeup. He is in such a position to.

Invoking God doesn't help your position. It just moves the question back a step. Why does God believe those two adults having consensual sex are doing something immoral? What is his reasoning? "He knows" is not a responsive answer. What does he know? What is his actual rationale for making that determination? You seem to think it somehow harms them. How? Show me.

According to your government system, 12 years old and up were considered informed, so why would you want to ignore.

Do you mean my imaginary ideal government of which I'm king? Or the actual government of the country I live in? Because in neither case is your assessment correct, as far as I know. I just told you there is no magic age of enlightenment. Kids mature at different rates. Which is why their sexual behavior, when it happens, falls into a contentious grey area on which there is much disagreement, and laws about them are so often arbitrary.

Which is why, for clarity, I wanted to talk about adult sexual ethics.

I appreciate the saying, "Patience, is a virtue."
I find that people who can understand things better, are usually people with patience. They usually listen to others rather than insist on a quickie - the "get to the point sort of persons".
The reason for that, is that by listening, they are able to follow a paths to see how one arrive at a point.
Some people tend to be sporadic, and jump here and there. They often miss vital facts.
In some cases, it's because they want to.

I find that often, people in debates like to dance around the core issue at the center of the disagreement. This is sometimes because at the core, they don't have a good argument for their position. So they nibble at the edges of their opponents view, nitpicking this word or that word, criticizing a ridiculous strawman of what their interlocutor actually thinks, playing Socrates so they never have to defend their own view, etc. So getting to the point is incredibly helpful.

 

[nPeace]

Thank you for your effort (though I knew mostly about the historical data).
I'm just not that well versed in the Bible. But from what I know it seemed odd to me that the Bible might agree to an age of consent of 17 or 18 (which was your initial claim).
Looks like my skepticism was justified.

I don't understand how it was justified.
Remember that things changed over time, so you do have to consider that.
We know that things have shrunk in size, and are not as large as in the past, so change is happening all the time, which impacts on our lives as well.

 

[nPeace]

Interesting.
What is it you believe 'flower of her age' means?

I assume we are referring to the Greek word huperakmos (ὑπέρακμος, ον).
Strong's Greek: 5230. ὑπέρακμος (huperakmos) -- past the bloom of youth

 

[nPeace]

Then what are you talking about?

Oh boy. Did you only say what you just said, you said? Or was there more you said?

 

[McBell]

I assume we are referring to the Greek word huperakmos (ὑπέρακμος, ον).
Strong's Greek: 5230. ὑπέρακμος (huperakmos) -- past the bloom of youth

Ok, I will play follow the leader with you...

What is it you think "past the bloom of earth" means?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Oh boy. Did you only say what you just said, you said? Or was there more you said?

Are you going to address the fact that the Bible doesn't agree with you that you shouldn't have sex before the age of 17 or 18? It says no such thing.

 

[nPeace]

But I didn't.



Yep.



Ah, now we're getting somewhere.

What harm is done from the two adults having consensual, non-adulterous sex?

What is it about the act that makes it immoral, other than that you just think God said so? Why did God say so? What's his reasoning?

Answer given - It causes harm.
What harm does it cause? You would not care.
Think of it this way. People tell young people, that having sex too early will harm them.
Young people go have sex. They see no harm. Your talks of harm falls on deaf ears. They don't care.
This is the situation.
I don't believe you have been on these forums for a year, and have not been given the explanation on why immoral sex is wrong in God's eyes. I don't believe you have not heard it quoted from the Bible.
I just think you created this strawman to get away from the issue... namely that appealing to "informed" consent does not make it morally right.

Invoking God doesn't help your position. It just moves the question back a step. Why does God believe those two adults having consensual sex are doing something immoral? What is his reasoning? "He knows" is not a responsive answer. What does he know? What is his actual rationale for making that determination? You seem to think it somehow harms them. How? Show me.

Do you mean my imaginary ideal government of which I'm king? Or the actual government of the country I live in? Because in neither case is your assessment correct, as far as I know. I just told you there is no magic age of enlightenment. Kids mature at different rates. Which is why their sexual behavior, when it happens, falls into a contentious grey area on which there is much disagreement, and laws about them are so often arbitrary.

Which is why, for clarity, I wanted to talk about adult sexual ethics.

Sexual ethics? Whose?

I find that often, people in debates like to dance around the core issue at the center of the disagreement. This is sometimes because at the core, they don't have a good argument for their position. So they nibble at the edges of their opponents view, nitpicking this word or that word, criticizing a ridiculous strawman of what their interlocutor actually thinks, playing Socrates so they never have to defend their own view, etc. So getting to the point is incredibly helpful.

What is the core issue?

I have an appointment, so later.

 

[Left Coast]

Answer given - It causes harm.
What harm does it cause? You would not care.

How do you know? I'm literally asking you to explain it.

Think of it this way. People tell young people, that having sex too early will harm them.
Young people go have sex. They see no harm. Your talks of harm falls on deaf ears. They don't care.
This is the situation.

Quite often, young people having sex doesn't harm them. So those young people are correct to roll their eyes at adults telling them their experiences have...somehow...harmed them when they can't show or explain how.

I don't believe you have been on these forums for a year, and have not been given the explanation on why immoral sex is wrong in God's eyes.

I've heard people try to give explanations. I've never heard a good explanation, ie one that is rational and evidence-based. I was wondering if this would be any different. Apparently not.

I don't believe you have not heard it quoted from the Bible.

The Bible is not evidence. The Bible makes claims. I care if there is evidence for those claims. So quoting the Bible doesn't cut it. Show me why you think the Bible's claims are correct.

I just think you created this strawman to get away from the issue... namely that appealing to "informed" consent does not make it morally right.

What strawman did I create?

What makes sex morally right, to you? You seem to think it has to do with what does not cause harm. Right? So what harm have the two adults in my scenario done? Either you have an answer, or you don't. Enough dancing. Just explain it.

If your answer is as simple as, "My religion teaches it does harm, therefore I believe it does harm, even though I can't demonstrate it does harm," then just say that. That would save everyone a tremendous amount of time and energy in this thread.

Sexual ethics? Whose?

Ours. We're the ones talking. Isn't that obvious?

What is the core issue?

The core issue is what actually makes a sex act moral or immoral (or amoral, having nothing to do with morality at all). I've asked you to explain your position half a dozen times now. Can you?

 

[metis]

Conclusion
Considering all these factors... the conclusion is, the consent argument, is a subjective opinion which is presented as a reasonable and sensible 19th century intelligent understanding. However the facts show different.
It is simply an argument made to excuse one's choice of conduct, and is built on the lie that no one is hurt, and that whatever one chooses to accept is right.
One certainly has the right to choose, but that does not mean their choice is right.

Anyone with enough guts to contend?

Of course it's contentious, so...?

 

[QuestioningMind]

The age difference is due to changes over the years.


"Adult" is the key word. If an adult cannot be clearly defined then age is irrelevant in the argument. See the OP. That was specifically mentioned.


This is irrelevant, but you are free to create your scenarios if you like.
The context of the OP is clear, it seems evident to me.


If you "ignore everything I said about minors", you likely missed the part that explains why your argument is irrelevant.


I would have rated your post Winner, but the Bahaullah quote threw me off. Sorry.
I agree with the first part though.

If you "ignore everything I said about minors", you likely missed the part that explains why your argument is irrelevant.

Obviously you 'missed it' as well, since you appear incapable of pointing out the part that I 'missed'. I think you're just attempting to avoid the question: What exactly is immoral about two ADULTS engaging in sexual activity that doesn't negatively effect anyone else?

 

[Trailblazer]

But we do know that sexual repression leads to personal sexual issues in the most part.

That is old hat Freudian theory. Psychologists no longer tell people that they need sex in order to be "normal" or "happy" or "well-adjusted."

People want sex, they do not need sex, except to have children. Some people choose not to have sex and they are no better or worse than people who choose to have it. Each group has their own reasons for doing so that are to them legitimate reasons.

If a person has no desire for sex, there is nothing to repress. The idea that they are somehow abnormal for not wanting sex is a kind of prejudice and it is just as discriminatory as discriminating against homosexuals who want to be free to engage in certain sexual behaviors.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do you think they are bullied?

I think they are bullied because they are different from the other kids.
For the same reason I was bullied in school, because I did not fit in.

I never fit in even as an adult, but the difference is now that I am an adult I don't care.

 

[nPeace]

How do you know? I'm literally asking you to explain it.

Quite often, young people having sex doesn't harm them. So those young people are correct to roll their eyes at adults telling them their experiences have...somehow...harmed them when they can't show or explain how.

I've heard people try to give explanations. I've never heard a good explanation, ie one that is rational and evidence-based. I was wondering if this would be any different. Apparently not.

The Bible is not evidence. The Bible makes claims. I care if there is evidence for those claims. So quoting the Bible doesn't cut it. Show me why you think the Bible's claims are correct.

What strawman did I create?

What makes sex morally right, to you? You seem to think it has to do with what does not cause harm. Right?

Wrong. What?
It's not about what is right to me. If it were, I would be doing like all the heathens - doing whatever feels good to me.
That's not the way I operate.
I believe the creator has the right to set the standards of what is good and bad... as the universal sovereign.
I didn't make myself, so I trust the manufacturer knows best how his design is supposed to function in the best way possible. Therefore, I am guided by God's instruction manual.

So what harm have the two adults in my scenario done? Either you have an answer, or you don't. Enough dancing. Just explain it.

First of all, I have not been dancing, since I answered you. I have not heard you once address anything in relation to the fact that the term adult is not restricted to your view of it. You dance away from that.
However, I'll bring it up again.

If your answer is as simple as, "My religion teaches it does harm, therefore I believe it does harm, even though I can't demonstrate it does harm," then just say that. That would save everyone a tremendous amount of time and energy in this thread.

You worked hard enough move away from the OP, and you are working even harder to avoid the core issue. I don't need to work hard on your strawman. I can save my energy. So can you.

Ours. We're the ones talking. Isn't that obvious?

That's what the OP was about? How did you arrive at that?
Looks to me like the strawman just smirked. My ethics. Your ethics. That's it?

The core issue is what actually makes a sex act moral or immoral (or amoral, having nothing to do with morality at all). I've asked you to explain your position half a dozen times now. Can you?

What makes any act moral, or immoral? Who decides that?
Who decides for example, that it is immoral to kill someone who murders another?

If you "ignore everything I said about minors", you likely missed the part that explains why your argument is irrelevant.

Obviously you 'missed it' as well, since you appear incapable of pointing out the part that I 'missed'. I think you're just attempting to avoid the question: What exactly is immoral about two ADULTS engaging in sexual activity that doesn't negatively effect anyone else?

I think they call that a loaded question.
How do you know it doesn't harm anyone else? Do you know it doesn't? Why do you believe it's moral?

 

[nPeace]

Ok, I will play follow the leader with you...

What is it you think "past the bloom of earth" means?

The earth grows? I never knew. When did it bud?

Are you going to address the fact that the Bible doesn't agree with you that you shouldn't have sex before the age of 17 or 18? It says no such thing.

You seem to be grabbing posts at random.
The words of the apostle Paul does agree, in that he encourages youth to marry not in the prime of their youth, but past the bloom. That's beyond the prime.
Of full age - from huper and the same as akmazó

The WHO defines ... 'Youth' as the 15-24 year age group.
Thus Paul refers to at least age 17.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The earth grows? I never knew. When did it bud?


You seem to be grabbing posts at random.
The words of the apostle Paul does agree, in that he encourages youth to marry not in the prime of their youth, but past the bloom. That's beyond the prime.
Of full age - from huper and the same as akmazó

The WHO defines ... 'Youth' as the 15-24 year age group.
Thus Paul refers to at least age 17.

Okay, you're just making things up now. I didn't know the WHO existed in Paul's time and that he used their definitions.

 

[nPeace]

Okay, you're just making things up now. I didn't know the WHO existed in Paul's time and that he used their definitions.

Evidently you are running through posts without even considering them, and saying just about anything you like.
There is nothing in that post linking Paul to WHO. Where did you even read that?
I doubt you even looked at the links.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If so, why? What is it about the act that makes it immoral, other than that you just think God said so? Why did God say so? What's his reasoning?

That made me wonder how well I could still answer that from that perspective.

I doubt LGBT youth commit suicide because they feel repressed by God's laws.

Your view on god, probably. Without doubt that view would have made my childhood and teen years less miserable than the view on god I was lead to believe in. The laws of that god is a big part of what drove me to suicidal thoughts and ideations, and tormented me with nightmares about going to Hell. Ontologically, there is a spiritual abuse and trauma that many LGBT youth in fundamentalist, evangelical churches suffer. An abuse (and not just with LGBT youth) that leaves people deeply emotionally scared and turning away from god. I was fortunate enough to escape such a cult with my life. Many don't escape it alive.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Evidently you are running through posts without even considering them, and saying just about anything you like.
There is nothing in that post linking Paul to WHO. Where did you even read that?
I doubt you even looked at the links.

You are being too disingenuous for me to bother with.