The Consent Argument

[Trailblazer]

The problem here is that sexual repression is often instituted by books that claim are speaking on behalf of God.

I do not consider limiting sex to a marital relationship between a man and a woman to be repression.

 

[Trailblazer]

Not all deities are all-knowing. Some deities are creator deities. Some are morality-givers. There is no reason to assume one has all of the properties.

Maybe not, but that is what I believe because that is what has been revealed by the Messengers of God.

And besides that, I do not believe there is more than one true God, the God who is All-Powerful, All-Knowing, All-Wise, and Infallible.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Spoiler: ALERT

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.

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).

Spoiler: Adult

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.

Spoiler: Extramarital Sex

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?

That's not really the 'consent' argument, though. At least, not close to any way I view it.
First of all, any mention of 'consent' needs to be taken as 'informed consent'. Neither a child, a chicken or a drugged person can give informed consent, for example.
Secondly, the argument isn't about what you think is 'right', but about what you think should be legally allowable. You get to choose your own moral standards.
For example, I've never cheated on my wife, and never would. But I don't think adultery should be illegal, for all that I don't respect making and then breaking vows.

 

[nPeace]

Sure, if no one can consent how do we decide if anything is right.

You know me and slap me on the back in public someone calls the cops after seeing it. Do you go to jail for physical abuse because I can't legally consent.

Forgive me, but I really don't understand your post. Could you rephrase?

This picture is wrong. In the UK it's 16.

Maybe it changed.

Willful mutual adult consent is something that is going to happen no matter what.

But to let a child, or teenager do whatever they want is immoral.

But we cannot and should not interfere with adult consent unless it is criminal and infringes on the rights of others.

An adulterous affair breaking marriage vows is immoral. The other partner should have the choice to end the marriage without responsibility to the adulterer.

Males and females should have equal rights and laws to protect themselves from dishonest relationships.

But to let a child, or teenager do whatever they want is immoral.
Teenagers rage from 13 to 19. So I think you need to be careful to be more specific. People will argue with you on that, and rightfully so.
The other thing they will argue with you about, is that you don't get to decide when they are an adult.
They will have a good point too, since the world is divided on what is an adult.
Since, they believe they are adult, they decide what they want to do, and believe that they have that right.
They very well might make the consent argument too.
Who is to decide that they are wrong?

Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity.
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...

[T]here is not much clarity in state laws [on when we are truly grown up]. In Alaska, teenagers as young as 14 can get married with a court order.
Eighteen-year-old adults can run for office, go to strip clubs, be sentenced to life in prison, and volunteer to go to war or be drafted, but as of last December, they cannot vape or smoke tobacco products.

It appears to me there is going to be a lot of change ahead, because with so many people crying out for the right to do whatever they want, what's to stop the youth for crying out for their rights to do the same.
Perhaps that's why so many preteens and adolescents are in prison for murdering their own parent(s).

On the average, about five parents are killed by their biological children in the United States every week.
Children and adolescents are most likely to kill to end abuse or to get their own way.

 

[nPeace]

This whole thing is a strawman. First of all, let's stick to adults. So all of #1 is moot.

Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity.
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...

[T]here is not much clarity in state laws [on when we are truly grown up]. In Alaska, teenagers as young as 14 can get married with a court order.

No. It's relevant.

#2 - you move the goalposts from what is right (morally) to what is legal in various countries. I'm sure you and I can agree that just because something is legal or illegal in some country, or even in many countries, that is not relevant to whether it is immoral, right?

You tell me. Based on the consent argument, two adults are free to do X, and thus it is right.
If a person believes they are an adult, the also believe they have the right to consensual sex.
They also believe it is moral, like the argument goes... "It is not wrong because they are both adults."
You are moving the goalposts.

If so, all the stats about what's legal and where are completely irrelevant to whether an act is moral.

Obviously your view of morality is not the same as mine, so I don't understand why you are on about morality... other than your creating a strawman.

#3 - adultery. Nearly everyone I know, of all persuasions, would agree that if you are in a monogamous relationship, it is unethical for you to go behind your partner's back and cheat on them with someone else. So again, this whole diversion knocks down a strawman.

The question is if two adults who are not in a sexual relationship with anyone else (or even if they are, but their other partners agree to an open relationship) freely consent to have sex with each other, whether they're married to each other or not - what is morally wrong with that? Do explain.

First of all, I never heard you or anyone else say..."who are not in a sexual relationship with anyone else". I always hear, "if two adults freely consent to have sex with each other, there is nothing wrong with that."
That's what I have always heard.
No one has ever told me they need to stick with one sexual "partner"...and neither am I raising that question.
So again, you are trying to build a strawman.

So what do I conclude? If people believe something hurts others, is morally wrong, and is bad for society, they will not buy the "consent" argument. If they believe there is no harm done, and it's a personal moral choice, they will accept the consent argument, as long as they consider both parties to have sufficient mental and emotional capacity (age) to make a responsible choice. We live in a very diverse culture with varying views. We can make our case on what we think is bad enough to be illegal, even with consent. In the end, the voice of the people and the courts will decide, and those decisions are driven by the moral compass and temperature of the people. We need to live within that system, as it's the best we have.

You don't appear to be contending... I think.

 

[nPeace]

These maps are inaccurate and a bit misleading. As @Rival says, it is wrong for the UK, in which 16 is the age of consent. Also, there is only one country in the world (Yemen) with a notional age of consent of 9 and no country apart from that with an age of consent under 12. In many cases there is a general age of consent but then an exception to a younger age, for partners that are close in age. For example in Italy it is 14, but 13 if both partners are within 3 years of each other's age. A sensible provisional to prevent exploitation while allowing that sexual maturity often occurs quite early. On this map, Italy is shown as green, i.e. 18, which is obviously wrong.

But leaving aside the inaccuracy of the maps, sure, the view taken of the age of consent varies by country. And indeed, these varying provisions will be judgements made about the age at which two people are adult enough to give informed consent to sexual activity, the object being to prevent exploitation and potential psychological damage.

The age difference is due to changes over the years.

So your assertion that "the argument goes like this" is wrong. It is never just about consent but about the age at which it is considered informed consent.

"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.

Furthermore your extrapolation that a thing is right if the parties involved consent does not follow at all. Two parties can consent to rob a bank, for example.

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.

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?

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

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

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

 

[Left Coast]

Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity.
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...

[T]here is not much clarity in state laws [on when we are truly grown up]. In Alaska, teenagers as young as 14 can get married with a court order.

No. It's relevant.

It's fascinating as a topic of its own, but for purposes of our dialogue, I'm interested in your sexual ethics when it comes to people who we'd both agree are adults.

You tell me. Based on the consent argument, two adults are free to do X, and thus it is right.
If a person believes they are an adult, the also believe they have the right to consensual sex.
They also believe it is moral, like the argument goes... "It is not wrong because they are both adults."
You are moving the goalposts.

No. You are attacking the weakest version of the argument, with the least nuance. I'm explaining to you that virtually no one actually has an ethic that is as simplistic as you are presenting. Thus, you're attacking a strawman. Why do that, instead of contending with what people actually think?

Obviously your view of morality is not the same as mine, so I don't understand why you are on about morality... other than your creating a strawman.

The argument you're trying to address pertains to what's "right" and "wrong." How is that not a moral question? If you don't want to talk about morality, I don't know why you started a thread to talk about right and wrong. No strawman there on my part. You don’t need to project your logical fallacies onto me.

First of all, I never heard you or anyone else say..."who are not in a sexual relationship with anyone else". I always hear, "if two adults freely consent to have sex with each other, there is nothing wrong with that."
That's what I have always heard.
No one has ever told me they need to stick with one sexual "partner"...and neither am I raising that question.
So again, you are trying to build a strawman.

If you've never heard anyone in conversations about sexual ethics talk about the morally problematic element of adultery, I suspect you haven't had many such conversations. Because such a perspective is ubiquitous.

The issue isn't that all people must have only one partner. Its that when you make an agreement in a sexual relationship to be exclusive, you violate that agreement by cheating. Which is why it's unethical.

So again I ask you, since you didn't answer the question the first time:

If two adults who are not in a sexual relationship with anyone else (or even if they are, but their other partners agree to an open relationship) freely consent to have sex with each other, whether they're married to each other or not - what is morally wrong with that? Do explain.

 

[nPeace]

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.

What age are you referring to?
There are minors who seduce and coerce men into having sex with them.

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.

I think the world has shaped the minds of young people to grow up faster than they were designed to, and that affects their hormones, and their intellect (understanding).
All the porn they come across; the association with peers already experts at sex; etc. Their minds and bodies develop at a heightened rate.
For example, there are 5 years old that can teach me all the ropes of using the most complicated cell phone... and more.
The world forces their development... sadly.

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).

Should that apply to those who are adults in the eyes of people who deem them to be? If no, why not?

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.

I didn't create this thread to get into what should or should not be. I am focused on the consent argument, and what it really is, as I mentioned in the OP.

I read a study where the teens should not get pregnant. It was based on the study of birthing ability and their anatomy. I am no expert on this, and if I could find the study I will share it here.

I suppose, this is the reason or at least a good reason.

Not necessary. More than likely it's a subjective opinion based on a few studies done on random teens which don't have the same health as billions of teens not included in the study.
A lot of expert advise tend to go like that.

 

[nPeace]

That's not really the 'consent' argument, though. At least, not close to any way I view it.
First of all, any mention of 'consent' needs to be taken as 'informed consent'. Neither a child, a chicken or a drugged person can give informed consent, for example.

Okay. You can go ahead and spell out the consent argument for me, so that I get it accurately.

Secondly, the argument isn't about what you think is 'right', but about what you think should be legally allowable. You get to choose your own moral standards.

Each individual choosing what's morally right for them, you mean?

For example, I've never cheated on my wife, and never would. But I don't think adultery should be illegal, for all that I don't respect making and then breaking vows.

Glad to know you have been faithful to your mate.
I don't take any position on what the government should or should not do.
I look to God's government and it's laws, as my instructions on morality. Other than that, I obey the laws of the land.

 

[nPeace]

It's fascinating as a topic of its own, but for purposes of our dialogue, I'm interested in your sexual ethics when it comes to people who we'd both agree are adults.



No. You are attacking the weakest version of the argument, with the least nuance. I'm explaining to you that virtually no one actually has an ethic that is as simplistic as you are presenting. Thus, you're attacking a strawman. Why do that, instead of contending with what people actually think?



The argument you're trying to address pertains to what's "right" and "wrong." How is that not a moral question? If you don't want to talk about morality, I don't know why you started a thread to talk about right and wrong. No strawman there on my part. You don’t need to project your logical fallacies onto me.



If you've never heard anyone in conversations about sexual ethics talk about the morally problematic element of adultery, I suspect you haven't had many such conversations. Because such a perspective is ubiquitous.

The issue isn't that all people must have only one partner. Its that when you make an agreement in a sexual relationship to be exclusive, you violate that agreement by cheating. Which is why it's unethical.

So again I ask you, since you didn't answer the question the first time:

If two adults who are not in a sexual relationship with anyone else (or even if they are, but their other partners agree to an open relationship) freely consent to have sex with each other, whether they're married to each other or not - what is morally wrong with that? Do explain.

If I understand you correctly, you want to know where I stand on morality. I follow the Bible's standards and laws on sex.

Whatever anyone in this world chooses to do or not do is entirely their choice, and is no concern of mine.

If they break the law of the land, then the law of the land are obligated to deal with that... even if they don't - Romans 13:1-7.

If they break the law of God, I am confident God will not leave them unpunished, if they are not remorseful.
They might still suffer for what they brought upon themselves though.

 

[Left Coast]

If I understand you correctly, you want to know where I stand on morality. I follow the Bible's standards and laws on sex.

Whatever anyone in this world chooses to do or not do is entirely their choice, and is no concern of mine.

If they break the law of the land, then the law of the land are obligated to deal with that... even if they don't - Romans 13:1-7.

If they break the law of God, I am confident God will not leave them unpunished, if they are not remorseful.
They might still suffer for what they brought upon themselves though.

Yes, I figured that. The question is why.

I assume, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you think "the Bible's standard" vis a vis my question is that those two people are engaging in an immoral act unless they're opposite sexes and married to each other. Right?

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?

 

[firedragon]

Not necessary. More than likely it's a subjective opinion based on a few studies done on random teens which don't have the same health as billions of teens not included in the study.

For this purpose.

Neal S, Matthews Z, Frost M, et al. Childbearing in adolescents aged 12–15 years in low resource countries: a neglected issue. New estimates from demographic and household surveys in 42 countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91: 1114–18. Every Woman Every Child. The Global Strategy for Women`s, Children`s and Adolescents` Health (2016-2030). Geneva: Every Woman Every Child, 2015.

WHO. Global health estimates 2015: deaths by cause, age, sex, by country and by region, 2000–2015. Geneva: WHO; 2016.

Ganchimeg T, et al. Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a World Health Organization multicountry study. Bjog. 2014;121(S Suppl 1):40-8.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Okay. You can go ahead and spell out the consent argument for me, so that I get it accurately.

Well, I kinda thought I did, but...
1) It really only relates to sexual relations. I can't use an argument of 'consent' to kill someone, although euthanasia gets close if legalised.
2) It is not about consent, but about informed consent. You were equating consent between adults with consent between an adult and a child, as if they're all part of the same philosophical position. Basically nobody argues that. It's a strawman.

Each individual choosing what's morally right for them, you mean?

Nope. Again, you're building up a strawman. Every individual chooses their actions. Some act according to a moral code (eg. you might follow some version of Biblical morality, albeit somewhat blended with other sources and positions). Some seem less consistent, and their 'morality' or more 'opportunism'. But regardless, all I meant was that laws don't mark morality. There are things that are 'illegal', and there are things that are 'right and wrong'. These aren't the same thing. That hardly seems controversial to me, and I would assume you would agree.
It means, in short, that whatever the laws state is allowable, you make a personal decision about what is right morally. Surely you agree with that, right?

Glad to know you have been faithful to your mate.
I don't take any position on what the government should or should not do.
I look to God's government and it's laws, as my instructions on morality. Other than that, I obey the laws of the land.

Then there is no need to have laws which enforce God's laws, right? Individuals should determine whether to follow such things or not.

 

[osgart]

Forgive me, but I really don't understand your post. Could you rephrase?


Maybe it changed.


But to let a child, or teenager do whatever they want is immoral.
Teenagers rage from 13 to 19. So I think you need to be careful to be more specific. People will argue with you on that, and rightfully so.
The other thing they will argue with you about, is that you don't get to decide when they are an adult.
They will have a good point too, since the world is divided on what is an adult.
Since, they believe they are adult, they decide what they want to do, and believe that they have that right.
They very well might make the consent argument too.
Who is to decide that they are wrong?

Biologically, an adult is an organism that has reached sexual maturity.
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...

[T]here is not much clarity in state laws [on when we are truly grown up]. In Alaska, teenagers as young as 14 can get married with a court order.
Eighteen-year-old adults can run for office, go to strip clubs, be sentenced to life in prison, and volunteer to go to war or be drafted, but as of last December, they cannot vape or smoke tobacco products.

It appears to me there is going to be a lot of change ahead, because with so many people crying out for the right to do whatever they want, what's to stop the youth for crying out for their rights to do the same.
Perhaps that's why so many preteens and adolescents are in prison for murdering their own parent(s).

On the average, about five parents are killed by their biological children in the United States every week.
Children and adolescents are most likely to kill to end abuse or to get their own way.

Well for children it is important to have rules that are reasonable and fair. At 18 they can always leave. There's always a measure of freedom they can earn before 18. Ultimately children have to have appreciation for their caretakers. So the caretakers have to earn that appreciation. Nothing is automatic about that.

If children are unruly and rebellious only, then all you can do is talk to them and share with them your own values and hope for the best. It's a two way street. But ultimately it's about building a relationship with the children. You got to show them love! They reject real love, then you ultimately got to let them learn the hard way.

There's no guarantees everything turns out well. But I certainly never gave children what they wanted if I thought it was harmful. They would have to do it behind my back.

It boils down to earning their trust anyway. If you can give them safety, and security and freedom to grow and discover things, and allow them to be themselves. If you can offer them a better way then they might listen.

Certain things are off limits though. As adults they can do what they want. At 18 they have that. Before that I give them good life, and tell them what I can about right and wrong, and then they can find their own trouble.

Obviously you cannot forcefully get them to comply. But you can say No, and not budge from that. You can uphold your laws in your own house if the laws are right. Either they listen or put them up for adoption.

I mean if the child/ caretaker relationship is completely broken without remedy, then why not ship them out.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I do not consider limiting sex to a marital relationship between a man and a woman to be repression.

Preventing people from acting out on their sexual preference, if their preference doesn't infringe on another's rights, is the definition of sexual repression. The LGBTQ community falls under those who would be sexually repressed. Also, religious sexual repression isn't limited to just having sex between man and woman. It often goes so far as to dictate what type of sex a man and woman can have. Preventing people from expressing themselves sexually, whether you agree with their form of their expression or not, has negative consequences.

So you can't say that limiting sex between man and woman isn't repression. Truthfully you would have to say that you are OK with repressing certain people's sexuality, but you have reasons for doing so.

 

[Trailblazer]

Preventing people from acting out on their sexual preference, if their preference doesn't infringe on another's rights, is the definition of sexual repression. The LGBTQ community falls under those who would be sexually repressed.

Repression is defined as the action of subduing someone or something by force so the LGBTQ community is not by definition repressed, because nobody is coming into their homes and preventing them for having sex.

Also, religious sexual repression isn't limited to just having sex between man and woman. It often goes so far as to dictate what type of sex a man and woman can have.

But it is not repression unless they are prevented from engaging in certain sex acts by force.

Preventing people from expressing themselves sexually, whether you agree with their form of their expression or not, has negative consequences.

From my perspective, allowing people to express themselves sexually in any way they please has negative consequences for individuals even if they do not realize it, and it certainly had negative consequences for society.

So you can't say that limiting sex between man and woman isn't repression. Truthfully you would have to say that you are OK with repressing certain people's sexuality, but you have reasons for doing so.

Repression is defined as the action of subduing someone or something by force. I am not advocating that so I am not okay with that. However I am advocating that people voluntarily control their sexual desires and have sex only if married. I realize that will not happen for a very long time, until people change and become more spiritual, because in present-day society people care more about physical pleasure than they do about God's laws. It is as if God's laws do not even exist.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, I figured that. The question is why.

I assume, but correct me if I'm wrong, that you think "the Bible's standard" vis a vis my question is that those two people are engaging in an immoral act unless they're opposite sexes and married to each other. Right?

What don't you understand about following Bible standards of sex?

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?

What makes it immoral for two 12,13, 14 years old to engage in sexual intercourse?
They are too young, you might say.
Who decides that they are too young, and why are they too young? Why does anyone decide they are too young to have sexual intercourse? What harm are they causing?
This will answer your question, so you know.

 

[nPeace]

For this purpose.

Neal S, Matthews Z, Frost M, et al. Childbearing in adolescents aged 12–15 years in low resource countries: a neglected issue. New estimates from demographic and household surveys in 42 countries. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2012;91: 1114–18. Every Woman Every Child. The Global Strategy for Women`s, Children`s and Adolescents` Health (2016-2030). Geneva: Every Woman Every Child, 2015.

WHO. Global health estimates 2015: deaths by cause, age, sex, by country and by region, 2000–2015. Geneva: WHO; 2016.

Ganchimeg T, et al. Pregnancy and childbirth outcomes among adolescent mothers: a World Health Organization multicountry study. Bjog. 2014;121(S Suppl 1):40-8.

I understand. You are presenting a reason why young people should not engage in sex before at least 17, 18.
I agree. The Bible agrees, for other reasons too, of course.

 

[Trailblazer]

What makes it immoral for two 12,13, 14 years old to engage in sexual intercourse?
They are too young, you might say.
Who decides that they are too young, and why are they too young? Why does anyone decide they are too young to have sexual intercourse? What harm are they causing?
This will answer your question, so you know.

Where is the this?
Did you forget to add something?

 

[Left Coast]

What don't you understand about following Bible standards of sex?

As we've discussed elsewhere, different Bible believers have divergent views on "what the Bible teaches" about sexual ethics, along with countless other topics.

All you had to say to my question was, "Yes."

What makes it immoral for two 12,13, 14 years old to engage in sexual intercourse?
They are too young, you might say.
Who decides that they are too young, and why are they too young? Why does anyone decide they are too young to have sexual intercourse? What harm are they causing?
This will answer your question, so you know.

Humans decide if they're too young, based on their degree of maturity and ability to give full consent (which by contrast, adults can give). So no, that doesn't answer my question. I want to know your view. What is it that makes the situation I described immoral to you? "God says so" is not a responsive answer. Why does your god say so? What's his reasoning?