• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Consent Argument

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Please Note!
If you are not here to debate the OP, or you just want to attack the poster, or make disparaging remarks, please refrain from posting in this thread.
If however, you cannot help yourself, as it makes you feel good about yourself, and you want to feel even better to receive a pat on the back from your buddies, it's a free world. Go right ahead and knock yourself out.

On the other hand I hope you are above that, and can support your side of the argument, with something more than a pea shooter. :grin:

By the way, if any of this makes you just go to the bathroom, and stay out the kitchen... please. :)

The argument goes like this... If two consenting people, wants to... then there is nothing wrong with...
To put it in another way - the way it come over to me.... Something is right if the parties involved consent to it.

Is this view reasonable, ethical, and sound, or is it just a poor excuse, and a weak argument?
I want to show how it's the latter.

1.
Talking about children at the age of puberty. If two children ages 10-15 wants to engage in sexual intercourse, either with children their age, or an adult, is that considered right?
The answer varies apparently. Some say yes, Some say no, but it depends on where one lives.
For example...
In some countries the age of consent is at 9 years old, some 10, 11... (the argument that they are not adults is irrelevant, since this is not consistent, but changes over time).
Adult - Wikipedia.
Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity. In human context, the term adult additionally has meanings associated with social and legal concepts. In contrast to a "minor", a legal adult is a person who has attained the age of majority and is therefore regarded as independent, self-sufficient, and responsible. The typical age of attaining legal adulthood is 18, although definition may vary by legal rights and country.

Human adulthood encompasses psychological adult development. Definitions of adulthood are often inconsistent and contradictory; a person may be biologically an adult, and have adult behavior but still be treated as a child if they are under the legal age of majority. Conversely, one may legally be an adult but possess none of the maturity and responsibility that may define an adult character.

List of countries by age of consent - Wikipedia
View attachment 45531

Why is something not automatically right, because those involved consent?
It is because there are factors involved. 1) There are laws prohibiting it. 2) There are underlying principles governing those laws (For example... taking into consideration the development of the child - both mentally and physically). 3) It's a moral issue.
Consent does not mean right, in this case, It only means it is accepted by some.

2.
Two adults, wants to engage in sexual intercourse.
Is it right because they are both adults, and consent?
The answer again varies. Some say yes. some say no.
However, again, it depends on some factors - including where one lives.
For example...
If they are of the same sex, it is a violation of law, in at least 70 countries... and or of different sexes it is against the law of some cultures and communities.
Adultery is extramarital sex that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds. Although the sexual activities that constitute adultery vary, as well as the social, religious, and legal consequences, the concept exists in many cultures and is similar in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. A single act of sexual intercourse is generally sufficient to constitute adultery, and a more long-term sexual relationship is sometimes referred to as an affair.

Some of these acts are punishable with death - 13 countries where being gay is legally punishable by death
Both same sex intercourse, and extramarital intercourse are against the laws of God, according to the Bible, and those who hold to Bible principles. (Mark 7:20-23 ; Matthew 15:19, 20 ; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)... as well as others.

View attachment 45532

There is also the law of marriage.
If one of the parties is married, how is it right for that person to adulterate the marriage bed? How is it morally right to be unfaithful to one's mate - breaking the marriage vow (which isn't much of a vow in some cases, anyways, in my opinion)?
The wife or husband who cherishes the oneness of the family, is hurt.
So the argument that two consenting adults are not doing anything wrong, or not hurting anyone, is nothing more than a lie - a lie told to self, and others.


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? :grinning:

The argument goes like this... If two consenting people, wants to... then there is nothing wrong with...
To put it in another way - the way it come over to me.... Something is right if the parties involved consent to it.


How about we stick with what you wrote here and ignore everything you said about minors, since the idea is that consenting ADULTS should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

So, why is it that you think it's immoral for 2 consenting ADULTS to engage in sexual activity with one another?
 
The argument goes like this... If two consenting people, wants to... then there is nothing wrong with...
To put it in another way - the way it come over to me.... Something is right if the parties involved consent to it.


How about we stick with what you wrote here and ignore everything you said about minors, since the idea is that consenting ADULTS should be able to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.

So, why is it that you think it's immoral for 2 consenting ADULTS to engage in sexual activity with one another?

While I largely agree with you, I think there are more grey areas than you think. For instance, is consensual incest between adults acceptable? How about consensual, unprotected sex between people who have serious inheritable medical conditions? I'd say both are acceptable because I'm generally a strong libertarian.

Another issue of subjectivity is the notion of "adult." For instance, I matured much more mentally from the ages of 18 to 23 than from the ages of 13 to 18. For others, it might be much different. So when a person becomes an "adult" with regard to mental maturity is highly dependent on the individual.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
While I largely agree with you, I think there are more grey areas than you think. For instance, is consensual incest between adults acceptable? How about consensual, unprotected sex between people who have serious inheritable medical conditions? I'd say both are acceptable because I'm generally a strong libertarian.

Another issue of subjectivity is the notion of "adult." For instance, I matured much more mentally from the ages of 18 to 23 than from the ages of 13 to 18. For others, it might be much different. So when a person becomes an "adult" with regard to mental maturity is highly dependent on the individual.

I would hope that people who engage in consensual incest or who have inheritable medical conditions would take steps to avoid pregnancy, but ultimately it's their choice if they decide they want to take the risk. Personally I would consider banning an individual from having a child because there is a statistical possibility that they will pass along an inherited medical condition to be far more immoral.

As for the age of adulthood, you're correct that everyone matures at different rates. However it's a legal definition so an age that's appropriate for the majority has to be chosen.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Why is something not automatically right, because those involved consent?

Anyone with enough guts to contend?
Gladly.... In my opinion, any behaviors that run contrary to the Laws of God are not right, so it has nothing to do with consent. Some people do not know what is in their best interest, but God knows because God is the Creator.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand. Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Gladly.... In my opinion, any behaviors that run contrary to the Laws of God are not right, so it has nothing to do with consent. Some people do not know what is in their best interest, but God knows because God is the Creator.

“God hath in that Book, and by His behest, decreed as lawful whatsoever He hath pleased to decree, and hath, through the power of His sovereign might, forbidden whatsoever He elected to forbid. To this testifieth the text of that Book. Will ye not bear witness? Men, however, have wittingly broken His law. Is such a behavior to be attributed to God, or to their proper selves? Be fair in your judgment. Every good thing is of God, and every evil thing is from yourselves. Will ye not comprehend? This same truth hath been revealed in all the Scriptures, if ye be of them that understand. Every act ye meditate is as clear to Him as is that act when already accomplished. There is none other God besides Him. His is all creation and its empire. All stands revealed before Him; all is recorded in His holy and hidden Tablets.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 149-150
Good for you. But I know of no gods. A book's text may "testifieth" anything it likes, but in my opinion, every book know to man was written by man. I cannot also help but notice the wide disparaties between all those books, which only serves to convince me further that no single, sovereign mind has anything at all to do with them.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
Please Note!
If you are not here to debate the OP, or you just want to attack the poster, or make disparaging remarks, please refrain from posting in this thread.
If however, you cannot help yourself, as it makes you feel good about yourself, and you want to feel even better to receive a pat on the back from your buddies, it's a free world. Go right ahead and knock yourself out.

On the other hand I hope you are above that, and can support your side of the argument, with something more than a pea shooter. :grin:

By the way, if any of this makes you just go to the bathroom, and stay out the kitchen... please. :)

The argument goes like this... If two consenting people, wants to... then there is nothing wrong with...
To put it in another way - the way it come over to me.... Something is right if the parties involved consent to it.

Is this view reasonable, ethical, and sound, or is it just a poor excuse, and a weak argument?
I want to show how it's the latter.

1.
Talking about children at the age of puberty. If two children ages 10-15 wants to engage in sexual intercourse, either with children their age, or an adult, is that considered right?
The answer varies apparently. Some say yes, Some say no, but it depends on where one lives.
For example...
In some countries the age of consent is at 9 years old, some 10, 11... (the argument that they are not adults is irrelevant, since this is not consistent, but changes over time).
Adult - Wikipedia.
Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity. In human context, the term adult additionally has meanings associated with social and legal concepts. In contrast to a "minor", a legal adult is a person who has attained the age of majority and is therefore regarded as independent, self-sufficient, and responsible. The typical age of attaining legal adulthood is 18, although definition may vary by legal rights and country.

Human adulthood encompasses psychological adult development. Definitions of adulthood are often inconsistent and contradictory; a person may be biologically an adult, and have adult behavior but still be treated as a child if they are under the legal age of majority. Conversely, one may legally be an adult but possess none of the maturity and responsibility that may define an adult character.

List of countries by age of consent - Wikipedia
View attachment 45531

Why is something not automatically right, because those involved consent?
It is because there are factors involved. 1) There are laws prohibiting it. 2) There are underlying principles governing those laws (For example... taking into consideration the development of the child - both mentally and physically). 3) It's a moral issue.
Consent does not mean right, in this case, It only means it is accepted by some.

2.
Two adults, wants to engage in sexual intercourse.
Is it right because they are both adults, and consent?
The answer again varies. Some say yes. some say no.
However, again, it depends on some factors - including where one lives.
For example...
If they are of the same sex, it is a violation of law, in at least 70 countries... and or of different sexes it is against the law of some cultures and communities.
Adultery is extramarital sex that is considered objectionable on social, religious, moral, or legal grounds. Although the sexual activities that constitute adultery vary, as well as the social, religious, and legal consequences, the concept exists in many cultures and is similar in Christianity, Judaism and Islam. A single act of sexual intercourse is generally sufficient to constitute adultery, and a more long-term sexual relationship is sometimes referred to as an affair.

Some of these acts are punishable with death - 13 countries where being gay is legally punishable by death
Both same sex intercourse, and extramarital intercourse are against the laws of God, according to the Bible, and those who hold to Bible principles. (Mark 7:20-23 ; Matthew 15:19, 20 ; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)... as well as others.

View attachment 45532

There is also the law of marriage.
If one of the parties is married, how is it right for that person to adulterate the marriage bed? How is it morally right to be unfaithful to one's mate - breaking the marriage vow (which isn't much of a vow in some cases, anyways, in my opinion)?
The wife or husband who cherishes the oneness of the family, is hurt.
So the argument that two consenting adults are not doing anything wrong, or not hurting anyone, is nothing more than a lie - a lie told to self, and others.


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? :grinning:
Nothing but meaningless strawmen fallacies.
A child even post puberty is still under the care of their legal guardian or a ward of the state. They have been deemed unable to give fully informed consent per the parameters in a lot of countries. Though child marriage seemingly occurs the most among the religious, using their religion as a shield to abuse children. Yeah, very moral of them. :rolleyes:

Now if two teenagers of roughly the same age and mental capabilities have sex, well I’m not willing to throw the kids in jail over it. Teens are impulsive and hormonal. We have to allow for “imperfections” lest we get too trigger happy. I would stress the teaching of safe hygienic practices to help ensure that they remain safe and healthy. How to identify STDs, encourage frank discussions with their personal physician and provide useful tips on how to “read” their bodies.
Whether or not the parents wish to discipline said teenagers over such acts is their business.

Now with most things “immoral” we can usually point to detrimental consequences as a result of such actions. Someone steals, a person or business is detrimentally affected by such an act. We might allow for leniency if a person was stealing to survive however, out of compassion (well, ideally we would.)

Incest similarly we could point to detrimental affects it can have on the potential offspring due to lack of variances with DNA and genetics.

Two people over the legal age of consent having sex, no matter how “spicy” no matter the genders involved doesn’t really affect anyone except those having sex. So informed consent is the end of the argument in such cases. Is anyone being hurt or detrimentally affected by such acts? No? Well mind your own business.

As for things like polygamy (assuming all participants give fully informed consent) really the only thing standing in their way is legal red tape making inheritance rather problematic. Other than that, what people do in their relationships, providing it involves no minors, is their business.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
Good for you. But I know of no gods. A book's text may "testifieth" anything it likes, but in my opinion, every book know to man was written by man. I cannot also help but notice the wide disparaties between all those books, which only serves to convince me further that no single, sovereign mind has anything at all to do with them.
Obviously, if you do not believe God exists you won't believe any scripture applies to anyone, but all the scriptures say pretty much the same thing about sexual behavior although religious laws do change over time.

My point was that if God exists God has to know what is in the best interest of humans since God is the Creator.
I do not mean Creator in a literal sense, because I believe humans evolved, but I believe God was responsible for evolution.

Whether people care about what is in their best interest is another matter altogether. In matters of sex most people just want what they want and they think it is okay as long as they are not hurting anyone. I disagree because I think they are hurting themselves, even if they are unaware of it.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
the wide disparaties between all those books, which only serves to convince me further that no single, sovereign mind has anything at all to do with them.
The disparities exist because they were written at different times in history. Scriptures are written to address the requirements of humans at the time of of writing. People and the world change over time, so it is only logical that scriptures of different religions would differ.

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Anyone with enough guts to contend? :grinning:

Yes. First of all, places do vary on the age when a person can 'consent' to any number of things, from having sex, to entering into a binding contract, etc.

The reason sex for minors is considered to be bad is that it is easy for someone older to take advantage of them and they usually don't know enough about the world to know what is involved and the consequences. There is also the issue of actual, physical harm. The power difference between an adult and a minor, similar to the power difference between an employer and employee, is enough to worry about coercion and to make this legally something to consider.

When the power difference is less, like between a 16 and a 17 year old, there is not as much of a concern. There is still a concern about the ability to make rational decisions, but it is also recognized that the teenage years are the appropriate ones to explore this aspect of one's personality.

Sex between consenting adults (everyone with full information) is just not anyone else's business, If it harms nobody, there is no moral dimension that I can see. This is true even if one of the partners is married to someone else *if* that is OK with the other partner(s).

The harm in adultery is the violation of trust, not the sex. And relationships are based on trust. So, yes, I would consider a violation of a monogamy agreement to be harmful to the marriage. But I would equally say that a violation of some financial agreement would be harmful as well.

But, the law should not be devoted to dealing with this type of harm. it is an emotional harm, not a physical one (in this sense, the financial violation might be worse and something to be dealt with legally).

The real issue of sex is for others is the possibility of pregnancy. That *is* a moral consideration. Fortunately, we now have the technology to minimize this risk. Those who do not use birth control *are* being immoral, in my mind, if they have no plan for a pregnancy.

Personally, I think more people need to explore their sexuality more and earlier. People should be encouraged to have sex prior to marriage. They should also understand that spouses are humans also, with flaws and confusion, and contradictory desires. We should all learn to be understanding of this.

I also, personally, think that monogamy is a terrible idea for most people. But hey, your mileage may vary.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
While I largely agree with you, I think there are more grey areas than you think. For instance, is consensual incest between adults acceptable? How about consensual, unprotected sex between people who have serious inheritable medical conditions? I'd say both are acceptable because I'm generally a strong libertarian.

The possibility of pregnancy is *always* something that a het couple should discuss and plan for prior to sex. To NOT is, in my mind, immoral.

For consenting adults, I see nothing wrong with incest. Most people won't want to go there and I see no reason to deny the happiness of those who do. IF consensual.

Another issue of subjectivity is the notion of "adult." For instance, I matured much more mentally from the ages of 18 to 23 than from the ages of 13 to 18. For others, it might be much different. So when a person becomes an "adult" with regard to mental maturity is highly dependent on the individual.

This is a much more general question, of course. When can someone enter into a contract? buy a house? adopt a child?

I really don't see sex as the biggest issue here.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Gladly.... In my opinion, any behaviors that run contrary to the Laws of God are not right, so it has nothing to do with consent. Some people do not know what is in their best interest, but God knows because God is the Creator.

So what? Do people have the right to make their own mistakes and learn from them? Absolutely.

Just because some creator thinks something is good for me (or anyone), doesn't mean it is.
 

Trailblazer

Veteran Member
So what? Do people have the right to make their own mistakes and learn from them? Absolutely.
Yes, I agree that people should be free to choose, unless they are hurting someone else. I am a firm believer in free will.
Just because some creator thinks something is good for me (or anyone), doesn't mean it is.
From a purely logical standpoint, if God exists and God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, then God has to know more than any human regarding what is good for humans.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The argument goes like this... If two consenting people, wants to... then there is nothing wrong with...
The idea generally includes requirements that ─

a. the consent be fully informed and

b. the parties have equal power of free choice, and​

c. they each have the mental health, mental capacity and maturity to understand the consequences of the proposed course of action and​

d. the proposed course of action will not have negative consequences for others and

e. the proposed course of action is not unlawful (though from a moral point of view, I'd say that one needs further discussion).​
1.
Talking about children at the age of puberty. If two children ages 10-15 wants to engage in sexual intercourse, either with children their age, or an adult, is that considered right?
It would be very unusual if none of c and d and e above applied.
2.
Two adults, wants to engage in sexual intercourse.
Is it right because they are both adults, and consent?
If it complies with what I've outlined above, sure.
See my note to e.
Both same sex intercourse, and extramarital intercourse are against the laws of God, according to the Bible, and those who hold to Bible principles. (Mark 7:20-23 ; Matthew 15:19, 20 ; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11)... as well as others.
That's a matter for individual conscience then. But the homophobic tendencies of certain ancient writers should be seen as their problem, not ours.
There is also the law of marriage.
The observation of the vows of marriage are a matter of individual conscience and certainly not something for the police to enforce.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It is as long as one is able, but when there comes a time when one is no longer able then I think it is best if that one is not reliant upon sex as a source of happiness.

Being *reliant* on anything as a source for happiness is probably not a good thing.

But, finding happiness with someone sexually is a wonderful thing!
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, I agree that people should be free to choose, unless they are hurting someone else. I am a firm believer in free will.

From a purely logical standpoint, if God exists and God is All-Knowing and All-Wise, then God has to know more than any human regarding what is good for humans.

Lots of 'ifs' there.

But let's go further. Suppose that some alien knew what is best for you. Would that matter? For me, it wouldn't.
 
Top