"Consenting adults"

[Rohzek]

You are evading the issue:

“There is only one intended purpose for the anus, and that is to expel waste.”

Yes or no?

I think in order to make your case, you have to go about it another way. The problem with this route of argument is that it supposes that meaning is innate to a material substance. But meaning is nothing more than the by-product of res cogitans (and the individual at that), which is not part of the material substance. So the best you can hope for is that there might be a commonly accepted purpose for some things, but by no means do you truly ever know that such is its purpose.

Furthermore, you also suppose that just because an intention is thwarted, that it is somehow innately sinful. You have to make the case that thwarting an intention is wrong in and of itself. Otherwise you have to rely solely upon the consequences of the action, in which case the intentions never mattered to begin with.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

What happens seemingly innocuously in the privacy of one’s own room between two consenting adults (or in the privacy of every human heart for that matter) has a ripple effect. The subject matter is much deeper than the pleasure of two people.

Have you ever thrown a stone into a quiet lake? It has a short lived, short distance “ripple effect”. This would be the analogy of a public act. If you throw the same stone into your bathtub, it will also have a short lived, short distance ripple effect but it will NOT effect anything outside your bathtub. This is the analogy of a private act.

But the problem is not whether there is an effect outside the bedroom. The question is: “as long as there are no detrimental effects, is it anyone else’s business”? If you peek into the bedroom, and see something that you consider a “scandalous” behavior, it is your problem. The solution is simple: don’t be a Peeping Tom. Stay out of other people’s life.

 

[clem456]

Have you ever thrown a stone into a quiet lake? It has a short lived, short distance “ripple effect”. This would be the analogy of a public act. If you throw the same stone into your bathtub, it will also have a short lived, short distance ripple effect but it will NOT effect anything outside your bathtub. This is the analogy of a private act.

But the problem is not whether there is an effect outside the bedroom. The question is: “as long as there are no detrimental effects, is it anyone else’s business”? If you peek into the bedroom, and see something that you consider a “scandalous” behavior, it is your problem. The solution is simple: don’t be a Peeping Tom. Stay out of other people’s life.

It has nothing to with peeping. I don’t want to know what you are doing. It’s not my business. Not the point at all. It’s not my right to know what you are doing in the privacy of your home. You misunderstand.
Your behavior might have something to with scandal. Depends on the situation.

The point is, no act is done in a vacuum, because we live in the context of others. We live with other human beings. Is this a reality or not?

The answer to the OP’s question is the Communion of Saints. We are all connected. We are unique individuals, but we are connected to one another. Unity through diversity.
If this is not the case, if we are not all connected, then we have no reason to feed the hungry and house the homeless. If my behavior is entirely my own business in an completely autonomous sense, everyone loses, as I have separated myself.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

The point is, no act is done in a vacuum, because we live in the context of others. We live with other human beings. Is this a reality or not?

What part of “no detrimental effects” don’t you understand???

 

[clem456]

What part of “no detrimental effects” don’t you understand???

No detrimental effects is the same as saying “good”. Ok:shrug:
Not sure what your point is.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Just a side discussion in this thread on Consenting Adults.

The correction you make is understandable. Medical practitioners no longer use “gay bowel disease syndrome” as a diagnosis or impression. Using ‘gay’ as descriptive or adjective to a disease that straight people also contract is confusing indeed. Plus the word ‘gay’ does not necessarily mean sexually active or promiscuous sex behavior in usage.

For clarity and to avoid emotional responses to terminology, CDC uses the “men who have sex with men” (MSM). The CDC does not gloss over the fact, however, that

HIV severely affects gay and bisexual men—more than any other group in the United States. Gay and bisexual men make up about 2% of the overall population, but account for approximately two-thirds of all new HIV infections each year.

cdc.gov/msmhealth/HIV.htm

Someone brought up the fact that in Africa, AIDS is largely a heterosexual health problem. Well, this paper Cultural Practices Contributing to HIV in Africa helps explain why, link below.

cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/hrdy1/

Cultural practices considered, promiscuity and risky sex practices are prominent factors in both straight and gay sex.

The above linked study however lists the factor of “sexual practices that have been associated with increased risk of transmission of AIDS virus (homosexuality and anal intercourse)”.
,

 

[tonyrey]

You are evading the issue:

If we substitute “function” for “purpose” surely there can be doubt about the matter. Even if we discount the moral aspect it is unwise and unreasonable to risk becoming ill for the sake of pleasure not just a few times but as a way of life when the consequences are well established by scientific evidence. Not only that. If we discount morality as well as purpose what are we left with? A free-for-all in which nothing makes sense except the law of the jungle. “Do what you like and make the most of life while you’re alive regardless of the cost to yourself or others. When we’re dead it won’t matter what we’ve done so just concentrate on having a good time, let others fend for themselves and forget all this bunk about human rights. We’re just naked apes and there’s nothing more to be said.”

Furthermore, you also suppose that just because an intention is thwarted, that it is somehow innately sinful. You have to make the case that thwarting an intention is wrong in and of itself. Otherwise you have to rely solely upon the consequences of the action, in which case the intentions never mattered to begin with.

There’s no need to bring sin into it. If we accept the distinction between good and evil it is wrong to misuse our body and another person’s body to such an extent that it not only makes us weak or ill in the long run but also encourages others to do likewise. Children are particularly vulnerable because they are given the impression that we can do what we like sexually and there is nothing to stop them gradually becoming sadists and pedophiles. It is the thin end of the wedge between what is right and what is pleasurable. That is why so many young girls have an abortion without even considering whether it is wrong. Morality is the very last thing on their minds in a secular society…

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The OP asks

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.

and after submission of posts by responders, Bradski laments

Good grief, you guys kill me. You really do. We could be having a discussion about donuts and it would degenerate into an argument about anal sex. What on earth is wrong with you people! Post after post after post with nothing but male on male homosexual sex. ‘But I didn’t start it! It wasn’t me! I have no interest in the matter except that…’.

Well, except for the fact that it seems to be impossible to discuss a topic such as ‘Consenting Adults’ (remember the OP anyone?) without someone wanting to describe their abhorrence of what that might entail.

The question in the OP was asking if you consider it to be any of your business what people do in private, as long as it harms no-one. It seems the only way you can answer that is to say: ‘Well, I’ll bet they’re doing something wrong! And hey, I’ll bet it’s two men having anal sex! Yes, that’s wrong so it must be my business!’.

Pathetic.

In discussing an ethics and philosophy issue with the following components

“Harms no one”
“Two consenting adults”
“Not anybody else’s business”

the discussion seems to inevitably lead to the sexual activity, specifically anal sex, does it not.

I came across a very balanced essay, A Delicate Matter in Sexual Ethics

philosophy-religion.org/living/delicate-matter.htm

written by Richard Thomas Nolan

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_T._Nolan

Nolan is a professor of philosophy and religious studies, an Episcopalian clergyman who is married to his same sex partner.

The essay is a good read, short, and on point with “between consenting adults”, what activity can be considered as harm, and when it becomes somebody else’s business.

,

 

[Pallas_Athene]

No detrimental effects is the same as saying “good”. Ok

Nope, it is either good, or indifferent.

Not sure what your point is.

Strange. What we do in the public sphere has a grater chance of influencing others. What we do in private usually has minor or no influence on others. That influence may be beneficial, detrimental or neutral. If that activity is detrimental (public or private), then it is legitimate to interfere. If that activity is beneficial or neutral, then it is none of your business.

What is there not to understand? It has been several pages of this thread.

In discussing an ethics and philosophy issue with the following components

“Harms no one”
“Two consenting adults”
“Not anybody else’s business”

the discussion seems to inevitably lead to the sexual activity, specifically anal sex, does it not.

No, not “inevitably”. Only when some people have a sick interest in other people’s rear end of the digestive system.

Two consenting adults may be married, or unmarried; may be of different sex, or the same sex, may want to procreate or may not… but there is a generic condemnation of any possible combination, if these people only want to love and please each other, while they do not want to procreate.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

…

No, not “inevitably”. Only when some people have a sick interest in other people’s rear end of the digestive system.

Maybe “commonly” is more accurate. “Only when …” as qualifier is too simple, however, if not a hasty misreading of the reasons people are in such discussion.

Two consenting adults may be married, or unmarried; may be of different sex, or the same sex, may want to procreate or may not… but there is a generic condemnation of any possible combination, if these people only want to love and please each other, while they do not want to procreate.

You subscribe to indifferentism. Catholicism does not. But Catholics do need to speak the truth in love. I for one forget and I have to remind myself of this. Unitive and procreative is not an easy concept to understand and live by for both heterosexual and homosexual adults in the current culture. As Fr. Check of Courage beautifully said, the distinguishing characteristics of human intimacy — love and life — are not just protections from harm, but they mark out the path to fulfillment.

People are protective and defensive of their behavior. And it is not uncommon, even among Catholics, to protect and defend the contraceptive mentality (among the married, unmarried, in different and same sex relationships) of their adult children, relatives, and friends.

If you stick around and manage not to get kicked out by violating the forum rule on charitable posting, you might pick up that there are those of us who do love and support our adult children or close family members and friends, but we do not support them in endorsement of cohabitation, homosexual unions / gay “marriage”, etc. This is far from saying it is easy. But we try to keep and follow the faith, not blindingly, if I may say.
,

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Maybe “commonly” is more accurate. “Only when …” as qualifier is too simple, however, if not a hasty misreading of the reasons people are in such discussion.

I am perfectly willing to accept that they act out of the best interest of others - as they perceive it. That they are simply motivated by “love”. But that does not help. They stick their “nose” where it is not welcome.

Do you remember the story of the young boy scout, who proudly told his father that he and five of his friends helped an old man to cross a busy street? When the father asked him why did he need the help of his five friends, he answered: “Because the old geezer did not want to cross the street”.

You subscribe to indifferentism.

My goodness… not another “-ism”. I have no idea what it means, but I suspect that it designates my attitude which says that I am not worried about other people’s behavior, as long as that behavior is either benevolent or neutral toward others.

Catholicism does not. But Catholics do need to speak the truth in love. I for one forget and I have to remind myself of this.

Just remember the young boy scout next time when you speak out about what you consider “truth”. When the old geezer wishes to be left alone, simply respect his wish.

Unitive and procreative is not an easy concept to understand and live by for both heterosexual and homosexual adults in the current culture. As Fr. Check of Courage beautifully said, the distinguishing characteristics of human intimacy — love and life — are not just protections from harm, but they mark out the path to fulfillment.

Again, it is NOT your job to decide what “fulfillment” is for others. I am sure that you would be upset if others would wish to dictate how you should conduct your life which leads to “fulfillment”. And you would be right. Don’t try to live the life of others. I wish to repeat: “respect” others, even if you think that they are in error.

If you stick around and manage not to get kicked out by violating the forum rule on charitable posting…,

If you wish to help me, I explicitly ask you point out which posts of mine are “non-charitable”. This would be the perfect time to exhibit your love. Let me learn about the rules of “charitable” posting…

 

[Memaw]

I am perfectly willing to accept that they act out of the best interest of others - as they perceive it. That they are simply motivated by “love”. But that does not help. They stick their “nose” where it is not welcome.

Do you remember the story of the young boy scout, who proudly told his father that he and five of his friends helped an old man to cross a busy street? When the father asked him why did he need the help of his five friends, he answered: “Because the old geezer did not want to cross the street”.

My goodness… not another “-ism”. I have no idea what it means, but I suspect that it designates my attitude which says that I am not worried about other people’s behavior, as long as that behavior is either benevolent or neutral toward others.

Just remember the young boy scout next time when you speak out about what you consider “truth”. When the old geezer wishes to be left alone, simply respect his wish.

Again, it is NOT your job to decide what “fulfillment” is for others. I am sure that you would be upset if others would wish to dictate how you should conduct your life which leads to “fulfillment”. And you would be right. Don’t try to live the life of others. I wish to repeat: “respect” others, even if you think that they are in error.

If you wish to help me, I explicitly ask you point out which posts of mine are “non-charitable”. This would be the perfect time to exhibit your love. Let me learn about the rules of “charitable” posting…

Instead of “Consenting Adults,” we should ask, IS GOD consenting?? Or are we afraid to face that answer in HIS TRUTH!! God Bless, Memaw

 

[Rohzek]

Instead of “Consenting Adults,” we should ask, IS GOD consenting?? Or are we afraid to face that answer in HIS TRUTH!! God Bless, Memaw

You clearly don’t understand the argument for about the last 5 pages. Pallas is an atheist/agnostic. He or she isn’t afraid to face the answer of something that they deem to be as fictitious as Santa Claus. What has been debated here for the last many pages has basically been natural law theory without theological trappings (or so has been tried at least).

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Instead of “Consenting Adults,” we should ask, IS GOD consenting?? Or are we afraid to face that answer in HIS TRUTH!!

Since God does not interfere, he has no objection. If he wanted to, he could just use the age-old method of showing his displeasure, and “smite” the offending ones.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I am perfectly willing to accept that they act out of the best interest of others - as they perceive it. That they are simply motivated by “love”. But that does not help. They stick their “nose” where it is not welcome.

Do you remember the story of the young boy scout, who proudly told his father that he and five of his friends helped an old man to cross a busy street? When the father asked him why did he need the help of his five friends, he answered: “Because the old geezer did not want to cross the street”.

My goodness… not another “-ism”. I have no idea what it means, but I suspect that it designates my attitude which says that I am not worried about other people’s behavior, as long as that behavior is either benevolent or neutral toward others.

While respecting traditions of other faiths, we do not subscribe to the idea that one belief is as good or true as any other.

Just remember the young boy scout next time when you speak out about what you consider “truth”. When the old geezer wishes to be left alone, simply respect his wish.

Again, it is NOT your job to decide what “fulfillment” is for others. I am sure that you would be upset if others would wish to dictate how you should conduct your life which leads to “fulfillment”. And you would be right. Don’t try to live the life of others. I wish to repeat: “respect” others, even if you think that they are in error.

Who disagrees with you about the need to respect others? How are Catholics dictating to other people, exactly? The OP asked how to effectively counter the argument by a culture (that is actually dictating to us) on actions that are purportedly between consenting adults, supposedly harming no one, therefore they are none of anybody’s business. It’s the kind of shortsighted reasoning to the Roe v Wade and Obergefell v Hodges decisions that led to laws that run against the common and social good.

A life is being snuffed with the consent of a pregnant woman with the willingness and skill of her abortionist, legal by the R v W ruling.

You could say that what goes in the bedroom of a same sex couple is nobody’s business but the O v H decision is manifestation that protection of said private and sexual liberty eventually became a nod to something that is public policy affecting all citizens. The effect of gay “right” to marriage necessarily produces a ripple effect (the water is not contained just in the bath tub), with punishment of people in employment and business who wish to speak out in favor of true marriage or to exercise their faith, and teaching of their children in public schools against their beliefs.

In addition, children who are of course unable to give consent, with interests no less important than the interests of adults, are placed in homes of same sex parents through adoption. Sure, circumstance and accident may result in less than ideal home situation, with an absent mother or father, or both. But, to intentionally put children with same sex parents is wrong headed. How does this translate to respect (of children), respect, which you underscore in your argument? Tell us again that there is no harm resulting from, it is nobody’s business, what consenting adults do.

We are called to proclaim truth whether it’s in or out of season, whether it’s currently popular or not. To convince, rebuke, and exort where / when appropriate, to be unfailing in patience and in teaching, like in this forum, where we are certainly proposing. Not imposing. You and I both do not want a big brother police state. But already, in the public square, we see signs that views labelled as Christian by you and others would not be tolerated and respected. Signs that the state, on prodding by the liberal left, is moving in the direction of effective limitations to freedom of speech and religion.

You may be dismissive of Christian belief in God, boldly declaring that the bible is a mythology book, that there is no such thing as sin, and we are fools to believe in a reward for good deeds in life after in heaven and punishment for unrepented bad deeds in hell … You are not the first, won’t be the last, to make such declarations here. We hear you. Do you hear us, or do you wish to silence our disagreement?

If you wish to help me, I explicitly ask you point out which posts of mine are “non-charitable”. This would be the perfect time to exhibit your love. Let me learn about the rules of “charitable” posting…

I will PM my response to this.

 

[Thorolfr]

In addition, children who are of course unable to give consent, with interests no less important than the interests of adults, are placed in homes of same sex parents through adoption. Sure, circumstance and accident may result in less than ideal home situation, with an absent mother or father, or both. But, to intentionally put children with same sex parents is wrong headed. How does this translate to respect (of children), respect, which you underscore in your argument? Tell us again that there is no harm resulting from, it is nobody’s business, what consenting adults do.

Children rarely have consent over who their parents are, including all the children who have rotten biological parents of both sexes. Having opposite sex parents in no way guarantees an ideal family or upbringing for children. There is also no evidence that having same sex parents is bad for children. Many same-sex couples make great parents.

 

[Midwest88]

Whatever you do in your bedroom and that it’s “private”, at least in a “non of your business” way is a false philosophy.

Whatever you do in private will have an affect on how you see life - your immediate community, your state/province, your country and the world.

Do you smoke pot? Do you think people who denounce premarital as crazies? Do you masturbate and have no qualms with it? How did your parents view education? What did your parents teach you about religion? What do your parents do for a living? What type of friends did you grow up with? When affairs are brought to media attention how do you react and if you do react is in defense of those caught?

What we do in “private” is only between the consenting people involved at first, but as months go by, years go by, whatever happened in private slowly creeps its way into everyday life.

He isn’t too popular around here, but I must uphold his words.

“Your beliefs become your thoughts,
Your thoughts become your words,
Your words become your actions,
Your actions become your habits,
Your habits become your values,
Your values become your destiny.”

• Gandhi

Our actions aren’t an island, nor are they completely quarantined.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Children rarely have consent over who their parents are, including all the children who have rotten biological parents of both sexes. Having opposite sex parents in no way guarantees an ideal family or upbringing for children. There is also no evidence that having same sex parents is bad for children. Many same-sex couples make great parents.

Life does not offer guarantees in any case. It can be and often is unfair.

Citing bad cases of parenting of biological fathers and/or mothers does not translate to the conclusion that gay parenting is best, better, or just as good for children.

Even in the best cases of gay parenting, the modeling of a natural family would be impossible.

All things equal except for sex differentiation / sameness of parents, a child is better raised by a mother and a father.

The unnatural configuration of same sex parents necessarily denies the child of a mother or father, both of whom provide balance in the emotional and psychosexual development of the child.
,

 

[Bradski]

What we do in “private” is only between the consenting people involved at first, but as months go by, years go by, whatever happened in private slowly creeps its way into everyday life.

Well, we’d better keep a check on what you are doing to make sure it doesn’t creep it’s way into public life. So here’s an easy question for you…Is what you do in the privacy of your own home with your partner, any business of mine?

If it isn’t my business what you do then neither is what I do any business of yours. If it is my business, then it’s everyone else’s business as well, so we should all expect regular updates on what exactly you do in private.

You may expect questions about your alcohol intake, your parenting skills, your preference for different types of sex, contraception, reading material, web access, dietary considerations, music that you listen to, private conversations on any and all subjects…well, you get the idea.

Or doesn’t it perhaps apply to you?

 

[wanstronian]

What we do in “private” is only between the consenting people involved at first, but as months go by, years go by, whatever happened in private slowly creeps its way into everyday life.

Our actions aren’t an island, nor are they completely quarantined.

Consequentialism is not a valid basis to pry into the private lives of anybody who you suspect may not hold the same values as you. As Bradski points out, if it were then everybody should disclose every thought they hold, every action they take (public or private) and have it held up to public scrutiny and judgement.

The failure of consequentialism is, of course, that it’s entirely subjective. Not only regarding whether the consequence is in fact bad, but also on the chain of causation that leads from the private action to the perceived consequence.

There is only one reasonable answer to the original question: If what people do in private is intended to cause real harm, or insufficient action is taken to prevent incidental harm, then it becomes other people’s business. Otherwise not.

Which is why in enlightened societies, law enforcement is interested in people building bombs in their bedrooms, but not in (for example) people having consensual anal sex.