The Consent Argument

[nPeace]

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.

I thought the context of the OP was clear enough to prevent persons running away with unrelated scenarios.
Why do you think adolescents are uninformed?

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?

Asking a question is building a strawman? Did I just build another strawman with that question?
Because one makes a law does not mean its moral. Some laws are not based on what's moral or immoral, but what is most acceptable.
An example is same-sex marriage. It was allowable based on the majority percentage of those approving.
What is considered right and wrong can also be legal and illegal.
For example, in some cultures, smoking marijuana is both illegal, and wrong.
So no, I don't agree.

The entire world of people, make their decision about what is right morally. Isn't that the truth?

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

God will enforce his laws when his government rules the earth. Until then, man does what he wants, or what the ruler of this world wants.

 

[Heyo]

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.

The bible agrees? Do you have a citation for that?

 

[nPeace]

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

No. "This" lies in the answer.

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."


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?

You didn't get the answer because you didn't want to answer the questions... maybe?

 

[nPeace]

The bible agrees? Do you have a citation for that?

Yes. Certainly. 1 Corinthians 7:36

 

[Heyo]

Yes. Certainly. 1 Corinthians 7:36

That says not what you said is says.
I don't see any age mentioned in there. To the contrary, it says a man should marry a woman (and have sex with her) if he is horny - no matter what age that women (virgin, so could be a girl) is.

 

[Trailblazer]

No. "This" lies in the answer.

You didn't get the answer because you didn't want to answer the questions... maybe?

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

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

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.

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.

Actually the definition of repression is:

1.the action of subduing someone or something by force.
"students sparked off events that ended in brutal repression"

2. the restraint, prevention, or inhibition of a feeling, quality, etc.
"the repression of anger can be positively harmful"

3. the action or process of suppressing a thought or desire in oneself so that it remains unconscious.
"children and adults pay a heavy price for their deep repression of thoughts about death"

Subduing by force is only ONE form repression can take. And many religions have even committed that offense, especially with regards to killing homosexuals. What you are advocating for is point 2 of repression when you say "However I am advocating that people voluntarily control their sexual desires and have sex only if married. "

Next, please explain the negative consequences of engaging in these negative sexual practices? Because we then have to compare those to the negative consequences of sexual repression which is, sexual assault, paedophilia and suicide.

The problem with God's laws in this case is that he doesn't give a valid reason not to do it and doesn't seem to account for the real life consequences of sexual repression, and therefore doesn't provide any practical way of overcoming them, therefore he has proven to be highly incompetent in that area.

 

[Left Coast]

You didn't get the answer because you didn't want to answer the questions... maybe?

I did answer the questions. Do you not understand why it's harmful to have sex with someone who doesn't give informed consent? If not, that's deeply troubling.

If so, then yet again I ask, since you have still not answered...what is immoral about the adults in my scenario having sex?

 

[Trailblazer]

Next, please explain the negative consequences of engaging in these negative sexual practices? Because we then have to compare those to the negative consequences of sexual repression which is, sexual assault, paedophilia and suicide.

It is not true that religious laws limiting sex to marriage between a man and woman leads to sexual assault, paedophilia and suicide, and one reason is because these laws are not enforced by any religion.

The problem with God's laws in this case is that he doesn't give a valid reason not to do it and doesn't seem to account for the real life consequences of sexual repression, and therefore doesn't provide any practical way of overcoming them, therefore he has proven to be highly incompetent in that area.

The almighty God, the Creator of the universe, does not have to give "reasons" for His laws, because God is not accountable to humans. However, Baha'ul'lah did explain why sex is limited to marriage between a man and a woman:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

 

[Samael_Khan]

It is not true that religious laws limiting sex to marriage between a man and woman leads to sexual assault, paedophilia and suicide, and one reason is because these laws are not enforced by any religion.

The almighty God, the Creator of the universe, does not have to give "reasons" for His laws, because God is not accountable to humans. However, Baha'ul'lah did explain why sex is limited to marriage between a man and a woman:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

Here is a brief write up on sexual repression:

Sexual repression - Wikipedia

Here is the thing, laws do not have to be enforced to cause sexual repression; all they have to do is make a person feel really guilty about it. So you create a culture in which being gay is seen as a sin, then actual homosexuals feel guilty, and then they repress their own true feelings and others discriminate against any who choose to "come out of the closet". There are many countries who create laws prohibiting certain sexual acts because of the dominant religion.

Also, there are definitely cases in which sexual repression is enforced by the laws of the religion. A good case in point are priests and nuns in the Catholic Church. They have to be celibate, yet we all know the cases of paedophilia in that church.

If God does not want to give people reasons for anything then he certainly doesn't care much about whether they follow his laws or not, as the best way to get people to comply would be to teach them about the reasons and consequences of a certain line of action, and help them to cope with the actual problems they have trouble with. If he doesn't do this then his advice is impractical and to say that God doesn't have to give reasons is a copout. Your quote is a good example of the incompetence of religion to provide any valid reason and motivation to follow the supposed sexual morality. It says that marriage is the bedrock of human society, protects and strengthens the divine institution, but there is no reason for me to accept that because I am not given an analysis of why that is the case. I could just as easily say that the opposite is true if we are just making assertions.

If God doesn't want to explain anything, then the question is: does he really even care about humans and the real issues they go through? Or does he just want people to follow him because of God tier narcissism?

 

[McBell]

Can you restate that...? You lost me.

You asked:

Since you are an atheist how could it be determined by a deity you do not believe exists?

So I am curious as to why one would think that God is unable to know why the lack of belief in the deity would interfere with said deities ability to know.

 

[Samael_Khan]

It is not true that religious laws limiting sex to marriage between a man and woman leads to sexual assault, paedophilia and suicide, and one reason is because these laws are not enforced by any religion.

The almighty God, the Creator of the universe, does not have to give "reasons" for His laws, because God is not accountable to humans. However, Baha'ul'lah did explain why sex is limited to marriage between a man and a woman:

“The Bahá’í teachings on sexual morality centre on marriage and the family as the bedrock of the whole structure of human society and are designed to protect and strengthen that divine institution. Bahá’í law thus restricts permissible sexual intercourse to that between a man and the woman to whom he is married.” The Kitáb-i-Aqdas, p. 223

An intro link to Suicide among the LGBT community:

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia

 

[Trailblazer]

You asked:
Since you are an atheist how could it be determined by a deity you do not believe exists?

So I am curious as to why one would think that God is unable to know why the lack of belief in the deity would interfere with said deities ability to know.

Do you mean why would the lack of belief in the deity interfere with said deities ability to know what is best for the atheist?

 

[McBell]

Do you mean why would the lack of belief in the deity interfere with said deities ability to know what is best for the atheist?

yes.
Your question seems to imply that God can not, or perhaps does not, know what is best for atheists simply because the atheist does not believe in God.

 

[Trailblazer]

An intro link to Suicide among the LGBT community:

Suicide among LGBT youth - Wikipedia

Do you blame this on God's laws? I doubt LGBT youth commit suicide because they feel repressed by God's laws. That does not seem to be the cause. From your website:

Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been specifically regarding sexuality or gender.[5] Since a series of suicides in the early 2000s, more attention has been focused on the issues and underlying causes in an effort to reduce suicides among LGBT youth.

"LGBT students are three times as likely as non-LGBT students to say that they do not feel safe at school (22% vs. 7%) and 90% of LGBT students (vs. 62% of non-LGBT teens) have been harassed or assaulted during the past year."[21] In addition, "LGBTQ students were more likely than heterosexual students to have seriously considered leaving their institution as a result of harassment and discrimination."[22]

 

[Trailblazer]

yes.
Your question seems to imply that God can not, or perhaps does not, know what is best for atheists simply because the atheist does not believe in God.

No, that is not what my question was implying. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Of course the All-Knowing God knows what is best for atheists, and it has nothing to do with whether the atheist believes in God.

When I asked: "Since you are an atheist how could it be determined by a deity you do not believe exists?" I did not mean that what is best for him is not determined by God; I was asking him why he would believe it was determined by God since he does not believe God exists.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Do you blame this on God's laws? I doubt LGBT youth commit suicide because they feel repressed by God's laws. That does not seem to be the cause. From your website:

Bullying of LGBT youth has been shown to be a contributing factor in many suicides, even if not all of the attacks have been specifically regarding sexuality or gender.[5] Since a series of suicides in the early 2000s, more attention has been focused on the issues and underlying causes in an effort to reduce suicides among LGBT youth.

"LGBT students are three times as likely as non-LGBT students to say that they do not feel safe at school (22% vs. 7%) and 90% of LGBT students (vs. 62% of non-LGBT teens) have been harassed or assaulted during the past year."[21] In addition, "LGBTQ students were more likely than heterosexual students to have seriously considered leaving their institution as a result of harassment and discrimination."[22]

And why might people be bullying the LGBT community in the first place?

A quote from my other sources:

Same-sex sexual activity[edit]
Further information: Sodomy law
Various cultures attempt to repress homosexual sexual expression. As of 2014, same-sex sexual acts are punishable by prison in 70 countries, and in five other countries and in parts of two others, homosexuality is punishable with the death penalty.[40] Apart from criminal prosecution, LGBT individuals may also face social stigmatization and serious violence (see violence against LGBT people).

Why do these countries have anti-LGBT laws in the first place? Could it be that it is because of the religious ideas of the community?

And yes, according to some religion's God's laws did persecute those of the LGBT community:

Homosexuality and Judaism - Wikipedia
Violence against LGBT people - Wikipedia

Under the mosaic law, those who commit homosexual intercourse were subjected to the death penalty. There are many many countries who had anti-LGBT laws because of religious beliefs.

I do think that we are going slightly off topic though. We are talking about consent and whether not allowing consent by prohibiting certain sexual practices or making people feel guilty about them leads to those who are repressed committing sexual crimes. Whether the community wants to physically persecute people for it is another issue.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why do these countries have anti-LGBT laws in the first place? Could it be that it is because of the religious ideas of the community?

And yes, according to some religion's God's laws did persecute those of the LGBT community:

Homosexuality and Judaism - Wikipedia
Violence against LGBT people - Wikipedia

Under the mosaic law, those who commit homosexual intercourse were subjected to the death penalty. There are many many countries who had anti-LGBT laws because of religious beliefs.

These are archaic and outdated religious laws and this is an excellent example of why God sends a new Messenger in every age to update the social teachings and laws:

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

I do think that we are going slightly off topic though. We are talking about consent and whether not allowing consent by prohibiting certain sexual practices or making people feel guilty about them leads to those who are repressed committing sexual crimes. Whether the community wants to physically persecute people for it is another issue.

I do not really know the statistics in whether not allowing consent by prohibiting certain sexual practices or making people feel guilty about them leads to sexual crimes but it does not make sense to me that it would.

 

[Samael_Khan]

These are archaic and outdated religious laws and this is an excellent example of why God sends a new Messenger in every age to update the social teachings and laws:

“The second part of the Religion of God, which refers to the material world, and which comprises fasting, prayer, forms of worship, marriage and divorce, the abolition of slavery, legal processes, transactions, indemnities for murder, violence, theft and injuries—this part of the Law of God, which refers to material things, is modified and altered in each prophetic cycle in accordance with the necessities of the times.” Some Answered Questions, p. 48

So I agree with you that they are outdated and need to be updated. But a necessity of modern times would mean that we scrap sexual repression because society has matured beyond that. Also, it says something about God that he couldn't just change peoples standards from the beginning but has to do it everytime humanity progresses. Its like God is dependent upon humans in order to get progressive ideas.

I do not really know the statistics in whether not allowing consent by prohibiting certain sexual practices or making people feel guilty about them leads to sexual crimes but it does not make sense to me that it would.

I think I was being unclear. I do not think that sexual repression leads to sexual crimes in most cases as I am sure sexual crimes makes up a small fraction relative to the religious community as a whole. But we do know that sexual repression leads to personal sexual issues in the most part, and we also see a link between sexual repression, such as celibacy, and sexual crimes. I think that the best case to look at is the LGBT community, but I must look further into it to find more detailed studies on it.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I thought the context of the OP was clear enough to prevent persons running away with unrelated scenarios.
Why do you think adolescents are uninformed?

Who said anything about 'adolescents'? I merely made the point that 'consent' refers to 'informed consent'. There can be lots of reasons a person is unable to give informed consent. Clumsily we use age as a rough approximation for maturity in a legal sense, and tie the ability of people to make decisions and take responsibility to that age.
What is it that you're arguing here? That any consent is fine?

Asking a question is building a strawman? Did I just build another strawman with that question?

Of course, asking a question can be building a strawman.
Your OP wasn't just a question, but to keep things simple, let's look at the basic premise : 'Something is right if the parties involved consent to it.'
Who is it that says that? Who states that 'something is right if the parties involved consent to it', and that's the end of the position?
It will be a very small percentage of the population who would take that position. Ergo : strawman.
If you think it's not a strawman, and in fact that is the common position people take in relation to consent, then by all means, prove it.

Because one makes a law does not mean its moral. Some laws are not based on what's moral or immoral, but what is most acceptable.

I literally stated;

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 seems you do agree. I don't see the controversy here.

An example is same-sex marriage. It was allowable based on the majority percentage of those approving.
What is considered right and wrong can also be legal and illegal.
For example, in some cultures, smoking marijuana is both illegal, and wrong.
So no, I don't agree.

Okay...so what is it that I actually said that you don't agree with??

The entire world of people, make their decision about what is right morally. Isn't that the truth?

Each person needs to make that choice, yes. That doesn't make all choices equally valid, but ultimately we all must take personal responsibility for our decisions.

God will enforce his laws when his government rules the earth. Until then, man does what he wants, or what the ruler of this world wants.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP. I'm trying to work out what the larger point you're trying to make here is. What is the position you're trying to communicate?