"Consenting adults"

[clem456]

Consequentialism is not a valid basis to pry into the private lives
…

The issue is continually missed.

This has nothing to do with prying. You would like to frame this according to a radical individualism that exalts personal privacy rights at all costs.
But the issue is whether or not human beings are connected to one another. Whether we are responsible for our brothers and sisters. Whether our actions and in-actions affect other people. Some continually make the juvenile error of believing that because I can’t see direct injury to my neighbor, I am excused to do anything I please. Seriously, this is a childish point of view that circles morality around one’s self and the desire to merely do what one pleases, with no vision of others. We expect this kind of morality from 5 year olds who have yet to develop a mature sense of responsibility to others. It’s a petulant and dangerous view of the world that allows any sort of evil as long as I don’t directly act to cause it. It’s the recipe for chaos. Look at history.

Who suffers? Other human beings, especially children, who are born of a man and a woman without exception, no matter what self deception we would like to engage in.
Institutions and actions that promote the degradation of marriage and the dilution of it’s benefits to children and society have their ripple effects.
Whether it be adultery, spousal abuse, child abuse, pornography, the gay agenda, simple apathy, sloth, greed, etc…all these things which can be called “private” have their ripple effects.

 

[wanstronian]

The issue is continually missed.

This has nothing to do with prying. You would like to frame this according to a radical individualism that exalts personal privacy rights at all costs.
But the issue is whether or not human beings are connected to one another. Whether we are responsible for our brothers and sisters. Whether our actions and in-actions affect other people. Some continually make the juvenile error of believing that because I can’t see direct injury to my neighbor, I am excused to do anything I please. Seriously, this is a childish point of view that circles morality around one’s self and the desire to merely do what one pleases, with no vision of others. We expect this kind of morality from 5 year olds who have yet to develop a mature sense of responsibility to others. It’s a petulant and dangerous view of the world that allows any sort of evil as long as I don’t directly act to cause it. It’s the recipe for chaos. Look at history.

Who suffers? Other human beings, especially children, who are born of a man and a woman without exception, no matter what self deception we would like to engage in.
Institutions and actions that promote the degradation of marriage and the dilution of it’s benefits to children and society have their ripple effects.
Whether it be adultery, spousal abuse, child abuse, pornography, the gay agenda, simple apathy, sloth, greed, etc…all these things which can be called “private” have their ripple effects.

It’s telling that you have grouped “the gay agenda,” which has never been shown to have any detrimental effects other than to upset the conservative sensitivities of those who hold a certain set of beliefs, with items such as “child abuse.” I think before you have any chance of making a successful argument, you’re going to need to defend your taxonomy.

And indeed, look at history. Look at the damage that has been done by patriarchal institutions that have acted to oppress and subdue, all in the name of furthering their own interests.

However, I digress: what would you suggest? How do you ensure that we all act in such a way that our brothers and sisters are unharmed by our actions? How, where, and how often do we declare our actions? Who decides whether they are harmful, and to what extent? How do we curtail those activities that are deemed harmful, and how do we ensure that in doing so we are not doing harm ourselves?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Who disagrees with you about the need to respect others? How are Catholics dictating to other people, exactly?

Calling their actions to be an “abomination” (and worse) is an attempt to dominate them.

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.

The old bumper sticker is still applicable. “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”. The new version: “Against homosexual relationships? Then don’t engage in them!”

But, to intentionally put children with same sex parents is wrong headed.

Why? Is there ANY evidence that same sex couples are more abusive than heterosexuals? Indeed such children will not grow up prejudiced against these relationships, and you consider this to be a problem. Others consider it a great advancement.

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.

Only because you don’t have the power to impose.

 

[clem456]

It’s telling that you have grouped “the gay agenda,” which has never been shown to have any detrimental effects other than to upset the conservative sensitivities of those who hold a certain set of beliefs, with items such as “child abuse.” I think before you have any chance of making a successful argument, you’re going to need to defend your taxonomy.

Actions and attitudes that blind themselves to the good of others have in common that they harm others, whether or not direct consequences can be observed. “No blood, no foul” is a lie. We all instinctively know this. In these cases that I inadequately listed (there are a multitude of others we all engage in), reason and charity are subverted through actions which exalt a radical individualism that denies our communion with others. Our reason is distorted and our gaze is diverted from what is truly good for humanity. We become unable “to see”. For instance, a man and a woman are designed sexually, emotionally, spiritually, to bond with one another in a uniquely complementary manner. Any person who is willing to look can see this complementarity. One must lie to one’s self to be blind to it.
One who exalts one’s own individual pleasure becomes blind to this complementarity and refuses to see this natural order, upon which the very existence and flourishing of human beings is based. This blindness allows a man or woman to take another man or woman as an object, rather than a complementary human being worthy of a complete conjugal relationship. This blindness allows me to use another person for my own pleasure and purposes. Whether or not the other person allows themselves to be used, or uses me in return, is quite beside the point. This blindness allows me to arrogate to myself the proper disposition of the sexual faculty, the dispensing of judgment, punishment, the radically individualistic disposal of my time and wealth without regard to others, etc…Spousal abuse, child abuse, adultery, sloth, greed, indifferentism…all these allow a person to surround themselves in distorted and blind personal morality, which can only detract from the well being of others.

And indeed, look at history. Look at the damage that has been done by patriarchal institutions that have acted to oppress and subdue, all in the name of furthering their own interests.

Very true. Systems and attitudes in which men abuse those with less power bring about all sorts of evil.
We can be thankful that despite it’s many shortcomings, the Christian community has an “ethic” that has endured, despite it’s flawed proponents, to propose a way of living that exalts the human dignity of all people in a unique way. Evidence of this can be seen in the establishment of centers of learning, universities, observatories, laboratories of all kinds, hospitals dedicated to serving the least among us, the largest charitable initiatives in human history, initiatives against slavery and the oppression of women. Indeed the entire history of civilization has been leavened by the presence of Christ among his people, despite the evil we all commit.

However, I digress: what would you suggest? How do you ensure that we all act in such a way that our brothers and sisters are unharmed by our actions? How, where, and how often do we declare our actions? Who decides whether they are harmful, and to what extent? How do we curtail those activities that are deemed harmful, and how do we ensure that in doing so we are not doing harm ourselves?

Enforcement is not really the point. I cannot force anyone to behave in a certain way. We can however poiint out the good that all people are called to, and exhort each other to contribute to that good. We can call each other out of our individualism to see how we are connected.

One of these primary goods is human existence. The call to exist, the right to exist. Human beings seem to be “called” to exist, cause, well…here we are talking about it and as I look around human beings are being born all the time. Protecting the ordered way in which existence comes about is important. It is not just another private reflex to be arrogated to one’s self. We should help families flourish, as it is the unique way in which human beings come into the world.
I am not SSA, but I can contribute to human flourishing by being faithful to my wife and family, by refraining from things which degrade the complementarity of man and woman and objectify it, like pornography.

 

[wanstronian]

For instance, a man and a woman are designed sexually, emotionally, spiritually, to bond with one another in a uniquely complementary manner. Any person who is willing to look can see this complementarity. One must lie to one’s self to be blind to it.

As are a man and a man, or a woman and a women, or a man and many women etc… They are different “manners,” but just as unique; and who are you to decide what is “complementary?” What magic rule makes procreation the yardstick of what is right and wrong? Homosexual and multi-partner behaviours abound in the animal kingdom - not just in our branch.

One who exalts one’s own individual pleasure becomes blind to this complementarity and refuses to see this natural order, upon which the very existence and flourishing of human beings is based.

The human race has done pretty well for itself - 7.3bn people alive today; and homosexuality no more rife than it’s always been.

This blindness allows a man or woman to take another man or woman as an object, rather than a complementary human being worthy of a complete conjugal relationship.

Have you ever talked to a homosexual? Do you really think they just view each other as objects? Really?

This blindness allows me to use another person for my own pleasure and purposes.

Well - consensual and mutual pleasure. Just like with a man and a woman.

Whether or not the other person allows themselves to be used, or uses me in return, is quite beside the point.

It’s not about “allowing themselves to be used,” any more than your wife allows herself to be used. Do you view homosexuality as nothing more than sex with a person of the same sex? That’s no more true than that heterosexuality is just sex with a person of the opposite sex.

This blindness allows me to arrogate to myself the proper disposition of the sexual faculty, the dispensing of judgment, punishment, the radically individualistic disposal of my time and wealth without regard to others, etc…Spousal abuse, child abuse, adultery, sloth, greed, indifferentism…all these allow a person to surround themselves in distorted and blind personal morality, which can only detract from the well being of others.

How does it detract? What harm does it do you if your neighbour is a homosexual? Name one behaviour exhibited by a homosexual that is not exhibited by any heterosexual.

Very true. Systems and attitudes in which men abuse those with less power bring about all sorts of evil.

Yet you support an institution that has been doing so for 2,000 years?

We can be thankful that despite it’s many shortcomings, the Christian community has an “ethic” that has endured, despite it’s flawed proponents, to propose a way of living that exalts the human dignity of all people in a unique way.

Well, the Christian “ethic” is basic humanism, but from a remote epoch and still stuck there because somebody wrote it down. Atheism provides no dogma or platform from which to commit evil; the same cannot be said for Christianity.

Evidence of this can be seen in the establishment of centers of learning, universities, observatories, laboratories of all kinds, hospitals dedicated to serving the least among us, the largest charitable initiatives in human history, initiatives against slavery and the oppression of women. Indeed the entire history of civilization has been leavened by the presence of Christ among his people, despite the evil we all commit.

The fact that Christian Churches have done some good thing is not evidence that these things would not have happened otherwise. There are plenty of non-religious learning centres, hospitals etc.

Enforcement is not really the point. I cannot force anyone to behave in a certain way. We can however poiint out the good that all people are called to, and exhort each other to contribute to that good. We can call each other out of our individualism to see how we are connected.

And we do celebrate kindness and good acts. They are perpetrated as much by non-religious people for non-religious reasons, as by religious people for religious reasons. People may commit good acts in the name of their religion, but I suspect those acts are rarely driven by religion. And if they were, it’s pretty sad that those people can’t do good of their own volition.

One of these primary goods is human existence. The call to exist, the right to exist. Human beings seem to be “called” to exist, cause, well…here we are talking about it and as I look around human beings are being born all the time. Protecting the ordered way in which existence comes about is important. It is not just another private reflex to be arrogated to one’s self. We should help families flourish, as it is the unique way in which human beings come into the world.

Many animals exist, many have gone extinct. We are not special, we are a biological accident. Homosexuality does not threaten our continued existence any more than it ever has and as you say, “here we are.” Homosexuality does not prevent families flourishing, and it never has.

I am not SSA, but I can contribute to human flourishing by being faithful to my wife and family, by refraining from things which degrade the complementarity of man and woman and objectify it, like pornography.

Well, they do that in your opinion, clearly. You have a right to your opinion, but you do not have the right to impose restrictions on others based upon them. That’s the kind of bigotry we need to work to eliminate.

 

[clem456]

As are a man and a man, or a woman and a women, or a man and many women etc… They are different “manners,” but just as unique; and who are you to decide what is “complementary?” What magic rule makes procreation the yardstick of what is right and wrong? Homosexual and multi-partner behaviours abound in the animal kingdom - not just in our branch.

…let me see if I understand.
You claim that man/man and woman/woman relationships are complementary in the same way as man/woman? You surely cannot be claiming that. But your words “just as unique” are a problem, because the varioius sexual situations are objectively not “just as” one another. They are different.
Complemetarity embraces a complete and whole exchange of persons. This complemetarity is not attainable in a gay relationship. The physical, emotional, and spiritual exchange of goods is not the same in it’s completeness.
And just to be clear, I am not claiming that gay people do not love one another, and that all relationships cannot have redeeming qualities. Not claiming that at all. The Catholic Church does not claim that non-procreative love is evil, as one poster here continues to slander.

Please note this has nothing to do my deciding what is what is complementary and what is not (…that is what you are doing ) and it has nothing to do with magic rules. It has do with common sense, reason, observation. It has to do with observing what is. Observing what is, is a key component of a healthy and sane society. When one cannot observe what is, then we have deception. A deception in the area of human nature always has tragic consequences.
“A Jew is less than a human being”
" A black person is less than a human being."
“This group and that is less intelligent, less human, should not breed with other races”
“We should not feed the hungry because they are not really hungry or whatever reason …(pick your excuse)”
“I should cheat on my wife cause it’s just sex. I need it and it feels good it doesn’t hurt anyone, and my fellow cheater likes it too.”

In all these lies, I am required to redefine human nature and come up with my own “magic rules”, as you say, to buy into these lies. I am required to abdicate my reason and common sense, to deny what is commonly revealed. It truly is a willing descent into ignorance.

 

[Thorolfr]

Complemetarity embraces a complete and whole exchange of persons. This complemetarity is not attainable in a gay relationship. The physical, emotional, and spiritual exchange of goods is not the same in it’s completeness.

How do you know if you’re not gay and haven’t been in a gay relationship? How do you know that there isn’t a “complete and whole exchange of persons” in a gay relationship or that the “physical, emotional, and spiritual exchange of goods is not the same in it’s completeness”? Your knowledge about this subject is based only on your own experience and what other straight people have claimed. It’s easy for people to believe that what they do is somehow special and superior to what happens with others.

 

[JurisPrudens]

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.

In terms of morality, modern philosophy is flawed, because those “consenting adults” would often objectify each other. They just use each other as a means of sexual pleasure. At big picture, modern people do not distinguish strictly between human partners and inanimate objects. Sex has turned into a form of masturbation.

I think, the above mentioned should be the message of moral apologists. God commanded us to restrain ourselves, so that we would treat each other with dignity.

 

[clem456]

How do you know if you’re not gay and haven’t been in a gay relationship?

Because I can see.
I am not a sun, but I can see the sun comes up in the east, and it sets in the west, and it provides warmth and light. I am not required to be a sun to observe reality.
I am not a black person, but I can observe that a being which has human dna, arms, legs, a stomach, human reason, is a human being. I do not have to be a black person in order to observe that a black person is a human being.
Since when must we arrogate to ourselves the entirety of human experience in order to have the powers of common sense???

Your knowledge about this subject is based only on your own experience and what other straight people have claimed. It’s easy for people to believe that what they do is somehow special and superior to what happens with others.

It is not about superiority.
I am not quite sure what you mean by “special”.
Unique. Man/woman is unique in complementarity, in the propagation and nourishing of human existence, in the complete exchange of human persons, body and soul. No other relationship is “just as”, as Wanstronian claimed.

 

[JurisPrudens]

How do you know if you’re not gay and haven’t been in a gay relationship? How do you know that there isn’t a “complete and whole exchange of persons” in a gay relationship or that the “physical, emotional, and spiritual exchange of goods is not the same in it’s completeness”? Your knowledge about this subject is based only on your own experience and what other straight people have claimed. It’s easy for people to believe that what they do is somehow special and superior to what happens with others.

Well, if two persons are of the same sex, they obviously do not complement each other. Seems quite logical, isn’t it?

Invocation of “experience” argument here, I think, is not relevant. Our “experience” in personal life is always flawed, because we are imperfect and can take our own disordered emotions as “experience”.

One can never learn morals from personal experience only.

 

[Bradski]

This has nothing to do with prying.

You are arguing in defence of the proposal that what I do in private is your business. And you have the temerity to state that it is not prying.

I will again ask the same question. Answer it if you want to be taken seriously: Is what you do in the privacy of your own home any of MY business?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Bradski;13221803]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 I have to pay for it, recognize it, or have it educated to my kids as a lifestyle choice, then you’ve not only made it my business but most likely the public at-large’s business as well.

And that mentality comes from government entitlements, not equality, tolerance, diversity or “love”.

It also involves denial of the Truth and personal selfishness.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

Notice how it’s now “consenting adults”.

It used to be “**two **consenting adults”.

Before that it was people who were married.

Still want to tell me there’s no slippery slope, and all is well and under control?

 

[clem456]

You are arguing in defence of the proposal that what I do in private is your business. And you have the temerity to state that it is not prying.

I will again ask the same question. Answer it if you want to be taken seriously: Is what you do in the privacy of your own home any of MY business?

The discussion went over your head.
Please reread.
It’s not about prying.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You claim that man/man and woman/woman relationships are complementary in the same way as man/woman?

Is there only ONE kind of complementarity? Relationships cannot be reduced to sexual activities. And the sexual activities cannot be reduced to procreation. The only thing that is “missing” from the homosexual relationships is the ability to procreate. Of course it is not “missing”, since the partners do not wish to procreate in the first place. And if they do there are other methods to form a family… namely artificial insemination (in the case of lesbians) or surrogate motherhood (in the case males) or maybe the old fashioned adoption.

Successful relationships rest on many “legs”, and sex is an important, but not exclusive part of it.

 

[Bradski]

If I have to pay for it, recognize it, or have it educated to my kids as a lifestyle choice, then you’ve not only made it my business but most likely the public at-large’s business as well.

Will everyone PLEASE stop talking about gay sex. I mean, seriously, that’s all a majority of you seem to want to post about. All anyone has to do is use the term ‘consenting adults’ and the word ‘private’ in any given sentence and half the forum starts bashing away at keyboard about anal sex. ‘Not on MY watch’ is the cry. ‘This is not just a privacy matter’ they furiously type. ‘Won’t someone please think of the children!’ Is the rallying call.

Ye gods and little fishes. We are talking about what happens in private. The term ‘consenting adults’ is there just to confirm that what we are considering is happening by consent. That is, I am not forcing anyone to do anything. This could and does entail anything at all. And I mean absolutely anything.

But I t seems that if a friend of Luigi says that he and his wife had a quiet night in…‘just two consenting adults having a romantic evening’ it seems that the first thing that pops into his mind is: ‘Oh my God - he was having ANAL SEX!’

Quite pathetic.

Now, Luigi. Your turn to answer the question: Is what you do in private with your partner any of my business?

It would seem that you have only three options.

1. No it is not. In which case neither is what I do your business.
2. Yes it is. In which case we will all look forward to a run down on last nights activities. And the night before etc.
3. This question doesn’t apply to me. In which case you are shown to be a hypocrite.

Actually there is a fourth. You can start railing about anal sex again and ignore the question.

 

[Bradski]

The discussion went over your head.
Please reread.
It’s not about prying.

The question still stands. Is what you do in private with your partner any of my business?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

If I have to pay for it, recognize it, or have it educated to my kids as a lifestyle choice, then you’ve not only made it my business but most likely the public at-large’s business as well.

Pay for it? Surely you jest. If you don’t want your kids to be educated, you have at least two options: “home-school them”, or move it to another country where such lifestyle is not just not recognized, but is criminalized.

 

[clem456]

The question still stands. Is what you do in private with your partner any of my business?

Can you narrow down a specific question here?
It’s been asked before in the thread.
What do you mean by “any of my business”?

You want posters to admit that we just can’t live without knowing which sexual practices you engage in, in the privacy of your home. And that we want the details, or want to punish you for for the details, or pass laws to have you monitored, or whatever. :whacky: I’m sure it’s not very interesting.

Not the point. You know it.
You’re dodging, because I don’t believe you can adequately address the points that have been made, so you are reducing the issue to a civil privacy and “prying” issue.

 

[Bradski]

Can you narrow down a specific question here?
It’s been asked before in the thread.
What do you mean by “any of my business”?

I cannot BE any more specific. Is what you do in the privacy of your home, with your partner, any business of mine?

That is SPECIFICALLY the question in the OP. You seem to want to change this into a question of sexual ethics when it is not.

The question stands on its own and I will almost guarantee that you will not answer because you feel that your private life, if you consider it causes no harm to anyone, is not a subject that is open for discussion for anyone else. BY DEFINITION it is private. BY DEFINITION it will remain between you and your partner. BY DEFINITION it is no business of mine.

But you cannot say that because you will be found to be a hypocrite.