"Consenting adults"

[broconsul]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

 

[Oreoracle]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

Is your question strictly about morality, or is it about legislation? If it’s the latter, then we have some more pragmatic concerns.

For example, let’s take something that is between consenting adults, such as the type of intercourse they indulge in. Some U.S. states outlaw certain types of intercourse. My issue is that when you pass a law, you implicitly approve of the means necessary to enforce it. So in our example, you would have to grant the government some means of keeping tabs on your sex life, which for most would be unacceptable. So we can dismiss such laws outright without even reaching questions about morality.

 

[Bradski]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

Maybe you should tell us why you think it is your business and we can work from there.

 

[on_the_hill]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

It’s not your business. The most you can or should do is provide the guidance and information and let them make their own decisions.

 

[captainrick]

I don’t get into discussions like that - everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it is horizontal thinking…from person to person on a horizontal plane. Thinking with God is vertical thinking…because His reasoning is above us.

If two people want to go roll in the mud and they’re not hurting anyone…okay, that’s their business…on a horizontal level. But the maitre’d of a five-star restaurant will not allow them to be seated with their clothes covered in mud. Indeed, while the couple would probably glory in their muddy attire at a tractor pull, they would proabably be embarrassed to be seen in such a state in more elegant settings.

Transfer this concept to the soul. The consenting adults who have a go that is sinful in the eyes of God have stained their souls. They may be willing to brag of their exploits among their beer-buddies, but in the presence of an all-holy God, they will be shamed into silence.

So, what they do as consenting adults behind closed doors DOES matter.

 

[meltzerboy]

What’s an effective way to counter the “what consenting adults do with each other is none of my business” philosophy? I’d appreciate either secular or religious arguments.

If this question refers to sexual relationships, what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is indeed none of your or my business. If they engage in sexual activities in public, that is another matter.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it is horizontal thinking…from person to person on a horizontal plane. Thinking with God is vertical thinking…because His reasoning is above us.

If two people want to go roll in the mud and they’re not hurting anyone…okay, that’s their business…on a horizontal level. But the maitre’d of a five-star restaurant will not allow them to be seated with their clothes covered in mud. Indeed, while the couple would probably glory in their muddy attire at a tractor pull, they would proabably be embarrassed to be seen in such a state in more elegant settings.

Transfer this concept to the soul. The consenting adults who have a go that is sinful in the eyes of God have stained their souls. They may be willing to brag of their exploits among their beer-buddies, but in the presence of an all-holy God, they will be shamed into silence.

So, what they do as consenting adults behind closed doors DOES matter.

I think the OP is looking for reasons on a societal level and not on a spiritual one. Usually people bring up the idea of consenting adults when it comes to legal issues, which affect not only those in line with Catholic teaching but also those who feel that God is fine with a little non-traditional adult relations and those who don’t think they have a soul that could be tainted by such acts.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I think the OP is looking for reasons on a societal level and not on a spiritual one. Usually people bring up the idea of consenting adults when it comes to legal issues, which affect not only those in line with Catholic teaching but also those who feel that God is fine with a little non-traditional adult relations and those who don’t think they have a soul that could be tainted by such acts.

How did God instruct the Israelites to handle cases when “consenting adults” had committed adultery in the OT?

And why do you suppose this was so?

 

[meltzerboy]

How did God instruct the Israelites to handle cases when “consenting adults” had committed adultery in the OT?

And why do you suppose this was so?

The death penalty was required only if there were at least two reliable eyewitnesses to the crime, which probably meant the couple would have had to have flaunted their sinful behavior in public.

 

[nodito]

A lot of the activities that many believe to be “private” actually do involve or affect third parties. An adult may consent to an abortion and her doctor may consent to perform one, but this ignores the reality of the unborn child who is affected by the choices of the adults involved. The same can be said of many sexual activities, which is what I suspect you are referring to. Two unmarried adults may consent to have sex, but if others know about it, or learn about it, it does affect other people. It affects their understanding and/or acceptance of sexual morality, their understanding and acceptance of what is normal, etc. This changes the moral climate of our society, whether one agrees with the acceptability of the behavior or not.

The argument that we can’t say certain private activities are wrong because it shouldn’t concern anyone but the adults directly involved is begging the question.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

How did God instruct the Israelites to handle cases when “consenting adults” had committed adultery in the OT?

And why do you suppose this was so?

The difference is that if consenting adults are committing adultery then there are one or two parties being wronged. That’s not equivilant to a couple spending the afternoon engaging in some decidedly non-reproductive intimacy in their own home.

 

[Bradski]

The argument that we can’t say certain private activities are wrong because it shouldn’t concern anyone but the adults directly involved is begging the question.

If there is no harm, or no potential harm, then it isn’t begging the question as it is not an argument. It is stating a fact.

 

[nodito]

If there is no harm, or no potential harm, then it isn’t begging the question as it is not an argument. It is stating a fact.

No, you’re making a moral claim that there is no harm. I suspect you are basing this claim on the “fact” that it only involves two people. I’d argue that most activities, even private ones, don’t only involve two consenting adults, and that therefore the morality of whatever action in question ought to be evaluated on its own merits.

Edit: That’s my secular argument, anyway.

 

[Bradski]

I’d argue that most activities, even private ones, don’t only involve two consenting adults, and that therefore the morality of whatever action in question ought to be evaluated on its own merits.

Edit: That’s my secular argument, anyway.

Well, you’re changing the question. Which now becomes:

‘Is what consenting adults do with each other, if it involves other people, any of my business?’

I think it’s implicit in the OP that it doesn’t involve anyone else. Scenarios are not too difficult to image where that happens.

 

[davidv]

Well, you’re changing the question. Which now becomes:

‘Is what consenting adults do with each other, if it involves other people, any of my business?’

I think it’s implicit in the OP that it doesn’t involve anyone else. Scenarios are not too difficult to image where that happens.

How can two people doing something together, not involve others? They are affecting each other.

 

[nodito]

Well, you’re changing the question. Which now becomes:

‘Is what consenting adults do with each other, if it involves other people, any of my business?’

I think it’s implicit in the OP that it doesn’t involve anyone else. Scenarios are not too difficult to image where that happens.

I don’t know. I think that, because we’re social by nature, a great many of the activities that “consenting adults do with each other” (and that you might assume don’t involve other people) actually do affect other people.

 

[Bradski]

How can two people doing something together, not involve others? They are affecting each other.

‘Others’ means ‘other than themselves’. I don’t believe I had to explain that.

I don’t know. I think that, because we’re social by nature, a great many of the activities that “consenting adults do with each other” (and that you might assume don’t involve other people) actually do affect other people.

Is what my partner and I did last night as consenting adults any of your business?

If you can answer that, you can answer the OP.

 

[Thorolfr]

Is your question strictly about morality, or is it about legislation? If it’s the latter, then we have some more pragmatic concerns.

For example, let’s take something that is between consenting adults, such as the type of intercourse they indulge in. Some U.S. states outlaw certain types of intercourse. My issue is that when you pass a law, you implicitly approve of the means necessary to enforce it. So in our example, you would have to grant the government some means of keeping tabs on your sex life, which for most would be unacceptable. So we can dismiss such laws outright without even reaching questions about morality.

Most laws on the books in US states that criminalize any kind of sex between consenting adults done in private and which does not involve prostitution have pretty much been found unconstitutional because of the US Supreme Court decision in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas.

 

[davidv]

‘Others’ means ‘other than themselves’. I don’t believe I had to explain that.

That is not explicit in neither the OP nor your reply.

Is what my partner and I did last night as consenting adults any of your business?

Since you brought it up, you just affected me. Since it affected me, it became my business, to some degree.

If you can answer that, you can answer the OP.

No one in this world is solitary and unaffecting of others. The “consenting adults” argument is fallacious and a vain attempt to justify immorality.