The Consent Argument

[Polymath257]

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:

Yes, I blame religious oppression, in part.

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.

And that bullying usually is inspired by religious attitudes condemning homosexuality.

"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 again, given the pervasive religious attitudes, why *would* gays feel safe? We have people following religious books that explicitly say that homosexuals should be put to death.

 

[Polymath257]

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 attitude itself is enough to inspire fear and guilt. It also encourages hatred towards homosexuals, to the point of promoting the death penalty.

Yes, that is oppression.

The almighty God, the Creator of the universe, does not have to give "reasons" for His laws, because God is not accountable to humans.

Sorry, but without reasons there is no reason to follow laws that cause such harm. If God (or his followers) cannot show what harms follow to support the law, then the law should be overthrown for the known harms it causes.

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

And what if someone doesn't want a family? What if that isn't their goal? Sorry, but that is a very bad reason to limit such a natural act as sex.

 

[Polymath257]

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?

Because they usually are.

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.

And the reason they approve is because they think it is moral. Same sex marriage is something any system of morals should allow.

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 legal view and the moral view are different. But, typically, the legal view is adopted because of moral arguments.

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

Except that they disagree about what is and what is not moral. Some people, for example, think that gay sex is immoral and others think it is just as moral as straight sex. Some people think that sex outside of marriage is immoral and others think it is perfectly moral.

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.

A dictatorial deity isn't a creature I would want to follow.

 

[Rival]

Maybe it changed.

It didn't. It's been 16 for over a century for straights and has been 16 for years for the gays.

In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised it to 16.[4][5] In 1917, a bill raising the age of consent in Great Britain and Ireland from 16 to 17 was defeated by only one vote.[6]

It's still 16.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes. Certainly. 1 Corinthians 7:36

You realize that the 'flower of her age' means when she starts getting her period, right? Do you know at what age that typically happens?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

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.

Lol, your god doesn't even agree as Mary was likely about 13 or 14 when she got pregnant. Once a girl started menstruation, she was generally viewed as a woman and ready for marriage. There's a reason why Jews have their Bar/Bat Mitzvahs at 13. That's the traditional age when you're accepted as an adult. People didn't live as long then as they do now, obviously. Unless you were very wealthy, you were lucky to live to 40 or 50. So they married young and hoped to have lots of children.

 

[Rival]

There's a reason why Jews have their Bar/Bat Mitzvahs at 13.

Girls have it at 12

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Girls have it at 12

Lol, makes my point even more. Thanks.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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]

Why do you think they are bullied?

 

[nPeace]

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.

True the scripture does not specify an age. I don't think any of the disciples would make a rule on what specific age someone should marry. However, giving a principle is expected, and reasonable. Paul says past the bloom of youth.
What is past the bloom of youth?
We know what bloom means. We understand what youth is. We know what past means.
So around the age of 17 is past the bloom of youth.

WHO defines 'Adolescents' as individuals in the 10-19 years age group and 'Youth' as the 15-24 year age group. While 'Young People' covers the age range 10-24 years.

Of course, it is expected that you will get different views, but what can we do about that... nothing.
It is the same with defining 'adulthood'. What is an adult?
The definition keeps evolving. do we know when one was considered an adult in ancient times, and their various cultures?

We know that children became heirs to the throne of their father, at a very early age - sometimes before puberty, and they even became kings then.
They were obviously well educated about life, and responsibilities, so might they have been more responsible, and informed? Perhaps.

What about the conditions back then?
I was reading that whereas, normally puberty is reached around the ages of 12 and 15 in temperate climates, it may come earlier in warmer climates.
This knowledge would have been available to people living back then. Contrary to popular views of skeptics, the ancient people did not have monkey brains.
So with the view that children were educated, very early, learned responsibility, very early, and possibly reached puberty, very early, this would explain why customs differed so greatly from today. Marriage took place during adolescence in many customs.

In the first century, two of Herod Agrippa's daughters, Drusilla and Bernice, married at age 14, according to Josephus. This seemed common practice in Rome.
Thus, when Paul encouraged the young virgins to wait until they were past the bloom of youth, he likely took into consideration the experiences that young ones who married too early, might have had. hence he wanted to protect the young aspiring Christians.

Protecting the young became a focus over the centuries from there forward. I say this based on the historical record.
In 1275 for example, the age of marriage, and thus consent was 12, in England.
The age of consent laws was put in place to "protect" the "under-aged", or rather, should I say, to prevent children who could not legally consent, from having to deal with proving their innocence, and thus make it difficult for the perpetrators to intimidate, a child, or escape penalty of the crime.
How that worked is another story. You can read that history here.

However, due to the increasing assaults on these minors, and the advantage being taken on them, people then focused perhaps on something they probably did not consider before - development - mentally, and physically.
So then we got this indecisive (as usual) back, forward, up down, motion on age of consent
It was increased to age 13 in 1863.

Like France, many other countries, increased the age of consent to 13 in the 19th century. Nations, such as Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, that adopted or mirrored the Napoleonic code likewise initially set the age of consent at 10-12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century. In 1875, England raised the age to 13 years; an act of sexual intercourse with a girl younger than 13 was a felony. In the U.S., each state determined its own criminal law and age of consent ranged from 10 to 12 years of age. U.S. laws did not change in the wake of England's shift. Nor did Anglo-American law apply to boys.

Behind the inconsistency of these different laws was the lack of an obvious age to incorporate into law. Although scientists and physicians had established that menstruation and puberty occurred on average around age 14 in Europe at this time, different individuals experienced it at different ages -- a fluid situation at odds with the arbitrary line drawn by whatever age was incorporated into law.

From there, it was raised to 16, then to 18.
You can read the next paragraph to see why these changes were made.
Right now, there is a cry in Japan to have the age of consent raised from 13 to 16. Perhaps, years from now, there will be a cry for it to be raised to 18 - Japanese students launch petition to get the country's age of consent for sex raised from 13 to 16... Or the reverse - The prime minister has rejected a call from a leading expert on public health to lower the age of consent to 15.
Faculty of Public Health president Prof John Ashton said society had to accept that about a third of all boys and girls were having sex at 14 or 15.

Who knows?
Sorry to be so long Heyo. I thought it was important to go through that bit of history.
You said though that you read something different to what I gave you. Perhaps you need to consider using a different translation.

Try the variety here, for a comparison.
Then consider the Greek interlinear, which says bloom of youth. Or more specifically past the bloom of youth.
Strong's Greek: 5230. ὑπέρακμος (huperakmos) -- past the bloom of youth
Then you can look here to get a better understanding.

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?

Who decides that they are too young, and why are they too young?
Yes. you answered that.

Why does anyone decide they are too young to have sexual intercourse? What harm are they causing?
No. You did not answer this.

If you cannot answer the last one, then maybe my answer will be moot.
I don't even understand why you think they don't have the ability to give full consent when for centuries they have been doing that.
It's entirely up to you. If you don't know what harm they are doing, how can you know what harm adults are doing?

 

[Left Coast]

Who decides that they are too young, and why are they too young?
Yes. you answered that.

Why does anyone decide they are too young to have sexual intercourse? What harm are they causing?
No. You did not answer this.

If you cannot answer the last one, then maybe my answer will be moot.

How is your answer dependent on my answer? You had no independent opinion on the subject before I came along? Surely not. Just say what you think. Why are you so hesitant to do so?

And yes - I did answer. The harm that can be done when a person doesn't give informed consent to sex is rather obvious. It causes deep psychological (if not physical) trauma that can stay with them for life.

I don't even understand why you think they don't have the ability to give full consent when for centuries they have been doing that.
It's entirely up to you. If you don't know what harm they are doing, how can you know what harm adults are doing?

I don't think there's a magic age when people are able to give informed consent all of a sudden. If some teenager has that level of maturity, then great. Many of them, however, don't. Which is why in general we advise them to wait until they're psychologically ready and more informed.

That's why this would be a more productive conversation if we stuck to folks who we both agree have the ability to give such consent. Which is what I asked for from the beginning of the conversation. But you keeping deflecting to talk about 12 year olds.

So why are you so hesitant to answer my question? Are you unable to explain the rationale of your position?

 

[SkepticThinker]

You realize that the 'flower of her age' means when she starts getting her period, right? Do you know at what age that typically happens?

I got mine when I was eleven. My niece got hers at 9.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I got mine when I was eleven. My niece got hers at 9.

Age at menarche varies over time and place:

"Currently, it is unclear whether chemical exposures alter the age at menarche. Ecological data suggest that chemical exposure has increased over time and that this increase may be correlated with a decline in the age at menarche [1,39–41]. European studies indicate that age of menarche has declined from 17 years in 1840 to about 13 years in 1970 [1,40]. North American studies show that the age at menarche declined from about 15 years in 1890 to approximately 13 years in 1920 [1,41]. However, it should be noted that no data directly show that chemicals are responsible for the decline in age at menarche. Alternative hypotheses, endorsed by many, state that the decline in age at menarche stems from changes in nutrition, weight, stress, or the accuracy of recording age at menarche over time [1,41–45]."

Menarche - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics.

 

[Heyo]

True the scripture does not specify an age.

Sorry to be so long Heyo. I thought it was important to go through that bit of history.

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.

 

[nPeace]

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?

The OP refers to adolescents.
The consent argument was regarding sex. That was the context, of the OP.

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.

Someone else called the OP a strawman. I wasn't referring to the OP, but to the question I asked you.
If one takes the OP out of context, or consider it from their perspective alone, they might refer to it as a strawman.
To me it isn't. However, I don't have to say anything to prove it. The proof is there already.
You are the one required to prove your claim. I don't have the burden of proof here. You do.

I literally stated;

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

I would agree that some things made legal, are not necessarily right. I won't say they are always different though.
Something can be both right, and legal, while not being different... Or viewed as having differences.

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

Do you disagree with what I said above?

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.

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?

The OP seems pretty clear and simple to me. May I ask what you take from the OP, in a nutshell?

Because they usually are.

That's like a person saying, in answer to the question, "Why do you think people are stupid?" Because they usually are.
That's no answer, it's just repeating your previous statement in another way. It does not address the question.

And the reason they approve is because they think it is moral. Same sex marriage is something any system of morals should allow.

The legal view and the moral view are different. But, typically, the legal view is adopted because of moral arguments.

Depends on whom the law giver is, doesn't it.
A law can be given based on what is considered right or wrong. What's the difference between the two?

Except that they disagree about what is and what is not moral. Some people, for example, think that gay sex is immoral and others think it is just as moral as straight sex. Some people think that sex outside of marriage is immoral and others think it is perfectly moral.

A dictatorial deity isn't a creature I would want to follow.

You've said that quite a number of time actually. It's not news to me you know.

It didn't. It's been 16 for over a century for straights and has been 16 for years for the gays.

In 1875, the Offences Against the Person Act raised the age to 13 in Great Britain and Ireland, and ten years later the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 raised it to 16.[4][5] In 1917, a bill raising the age of consent in Great Britain and Ireland from 16 to 17 was defeated by only one vote.[6]

It's still 16.

There is probably misinformation somewhere.
In 2001, the age of consent for gay men in England and Wales was reduced from 18 to 16, bringing it in line with heterosexuals for the first time. Lesbians, who until then faced no statutory age of consent, were also included in that legislation.

Anyhow, it's not significant to the thread.
Just scratch whatever imperfections there are that don't impact in any way on the topic.

You realize that the 'flower of her age' means when she starts getting her period, right? Do you know at what age that typically happens?

Why would I realize that. Did you provide any reference that shows this?

Lol, your god doesn't even agree as Mary was likely about 13 or 14 when she got pregnant. Once a girl started menstruation, she was generally viewed as a woman and ready for marriage. There's a reason why Jews have their Bar/Bat Mitzvahs at 13. That's the traditional age when you're accepted as an adult. People didn't live as long then as they do now, obviously. Unless you were very wealthy, you were lucky to live to 40 or 50. So they married young and hoped to have lots of children.

That's your theory?
No. People used to live quite long in the past. the climate was different. The culture and customs were different. The health was different as they were not accustomed to the "junk" foods of later ages, and the genetics were not as degenerated. Everything was different. See here.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

That's your theory?
No. People used to live quite long in the past. the climate was different. The culture and customs were different. The health was different as they were not accustomed to the "junk" foods of later ages, and the genetics were not as degenerated. Everything was different. See here.

That's not a theory, it's fact. The post you linked to does nothing to rebut what I said. Marriages in that time and era were mostly arranged and the girl would be engaged at a young age. That's what happened to Mary. That's what happened to Aisha, Muhammad's youngest wife, too (Arab tribes and Jews have similar customs). Joseph was much older than her and likely was married beforehand.

 

[Polymath257]

Why would I realize that. Did you provide any reference that shows this?

I thought it was common knowledge. That is the standard description of menarche and has been for ages.

 

[Rival]

There is probably misinformation somewhere.
In 2001, the age of consent for gay men in England and Wales was reduced from 18 to 16, bringing it in line with heterosexuals for the first time. Lesbians, who until then faced no statutory age of consent, were also included in that legislation.

Anyhow, it's not significant to the thread.
Just scratch whatever imperfections there are that don't impact in any way on the topic.

Yes, I mentioned the differences between gays and straights particularly. It's been 16 for straights since 1885.

It didn't. It's been 16 for over a century for straights and has been 16 for years for the gays.

 

[nPeace]

How is your answer dependent on my answer? You had no independent opinion on the subject before I came along? Surely not. Just say what you think. Why are you so hesitant to do so?

And yes - I did answer. The harm that can be done when a person doesn't give informed consent to sex is rather obvious. It causes deep psychological (if not physical) trauma that can stay with them for life.

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.

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?

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.
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.

I don't think there's a magic age when people are able to give informed consent all of a sudden. If some teenager has that level of maturity, then great. Many of them, however, don't. Which is why in general we advise them to wait until they're psychologically ready and more informed.

That's why this would be a more productive conversation if we stuck to folks who we both agree have the ability to give such consent. Which is what I asked for from the beginning of the conversation. But you keeping deflecting to talk about 12 year olds.

So why are you so hesitant to answer my question? Are you unable to explain the rationale of your position?

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

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.

 

[nPeace]

That's not a theory, it's fact. The post you linked to does nothing to rebut what I said. Marriages in that time and era were mostly arranged and the girl would be engaged at a young age. That's what happened to Mary. That's what happened to Aisha, Muhammad's youngest wife, too (Arab tribes and Jews have similar customs). Joseph was much older than her and likely was married beforehand.

I was not referring to that as a theory.

I thought it was common knowledge. That is the standard description of menarche and has been for ages.

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.