"Consenting adults"

[Bradski]

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

The OP doesn’t mention it. I did. And I specifically said:

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

I even put ‘if it involves other people’ in italics so it would be easier for someone to understand. A waste of good italics, apparently.

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

This’ll be good…

So tell me in what way it is your business. How does what we were doing concern you? What impact has what we were doing had on you and how does that impact relate to myself and my partner? Has that impact been negative?

 

[Thorolfr]

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

There must be a lot of other people’s business that has now become your business. It must keep you awfully busy.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

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

Not everything needs to be explicitly declared to be blatantly obvious.

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

Was the effect detrimental to your health? Do you now have a fever? A headache? Did it cause you some negative experience? You are not under any obligation to engage in conversations with others. If that conversation affects you in some negative manner… blame yourself.

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

I just finished a dinner of some good salad with a homemade burger. How did it affect you? Saliva dripping? Had a heartburn? Did it make you hungry?

As for the “immorality” part, whatever you consider immoral, the solution is “do not engage in such behavior”. As the bumper sticker said: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”. Otherwise it is none of your business. But if you think that it adversely affects you, turn off your computer, close your window and door, and conduct a solitary life.

 

[broconsul]

Nearly everything is not my business, but that’s not a reason to stick my head in the sand about it.

Domestic abuse in the privacy of your own home? Contract for abortion services? Dog fighting ring? Woman on the west side of down gets murdered? Not really my business, but we should have laws against these things.

So the “MYOB” argument doesn’t really get us anywhere. Sure, it’s not my business, but why isn’t it my business?

And obviously the above doesn’t address “consenting adults.” We have prostitution and drug sales which are illegal, and I know libertarians would like to strike those laws on that basis.

Seems like “consenting adults” is the philosophical magic talisman of an atomized society. And I think the right answer is that it never truly is about just the two parties engaged in the act.

When a guy comes out as gay, what does that mean? Ultimately, generally, it means that he would like to, or does, engage in homosexual erotic acts. So when he’s out, he’s putting the whole world on notice about his desires, thus not keeping his business to the “consenting adults” involved.

If a “consenting adult” engages in the solitary vice while viewing “consenting adults” who get paid for their bedroom acting skills, won’t that impact how he sees women in real life? Probably.

 

[broconsul]

“Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”. Otherwise it is none of your business.

Against slavery? Don’t buy slaves.

Easy peas.

 

[Lucretius]

Christ pointed out that the Law has two ultimate points, with the relevant point (for this thread) being “love your neighbor.”

But does “love your neighbor” mean? It is the will for the good of your neighbor, for no reason at all.

So, when we see two “consenting adults” inflict evil on themselves, to follow the law, their actions become our business. To say that such things are “none of our business” would be to reject the law.

What if God said “well, Adam and Eve did consent to that sin, so its none of my Business anymore. Have fun suffering and dying?”

The secular idea of Love is a feel good emotion: seculars love humanity, an abstraction that doesn’t demand anything hard. Christians, on the other hand, love in the true sense: “laying our lives down for our friends” (which doesn’t just mean physically dying, but sacrificing your needs and desires for another’s). We love our neighbors, those concrete, slightly smelly, annoying people who wake us up in at night and make a mistake we have to fix for them and so on: those people who often hang us on a Cross, literally or (more often ) metaphorically.

The secular world believes that consent is inherently good, so it uses consent to justify homosexuality, assistant suicide, and abortion. They consented, right? The only crimes are crimes in which one person did not consent but was forced into the activity anyway.

But this is insanity. Just because the drug addict or the alcoholic are consenting to their activities, that doesn’t make it good. The Good is objective, and knowable by reason.

In fact, I have seen seculars reject “love your neighbor” and the Golden rule on the grounds that it is getting involved and “forcing yourself” on another, which they might not want. It’s sad: they are literally rejecting love for self-centeredness In not saying we should suppress people, but to continue watching them fall is not an option either. It’s hard.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[broconsul]

Or how about this for a test of what’s my business:

If everyone did it, would it be good for society?

If yes, carry on.
If no, we need to have a talk.

 

[Thorolfr]

When a guy comes out as gay, what does that mean? Ultimately, generally, it means that he would like to, or does, engage in homosexual erotic acts. So when he’s out, he’s putting the whole world on notice about his desires, thus not keeping his business to the “consenting adults” involved.

What about the guy who says he’s straight or has a picture of his wife or girlfriend on his desk at work or shows someone a picture of his kids? Doesn’t that mean that we can conclude that he probably engages in heterosexual erotic acts and is putting the whole world on notice about this and not keeping his business to the “consenting adults” involved? Maybe everyone should conceal any clues as to their sexual orientation or marital status or any relationships they are in so that no one can tell who’s straight or gay or asexual or celibate, etc.

 

[broconsul]

Christi pax,

Lucretius

Solid. Thanks for this.

 

[broconsul]

What about the guy who says he’s straight or has a picture of his wife or girlfriend on his desk at work or shows someone a picture of his kids? Doesn’t that mean that we can conclude that he probably engages in heterosexual erotic acts and is putting the whole world on notice about this and not keeping his business to the “consenting adults” involved? Maybe everyone should conceal any clues as to their sexual orientation so that no one can tell who’s straight or gay or asexual or celibate, etc.

Except that sodomy and the marital act are not morally equivalent.

 

[Lucretius]

So, the political debate ultimately reduces to two questions:

1. is the action in question morally evil (against the good of the self or others?), and
2. if the action is evil, practically speaking, should the state tolerate the deed, for whatever reason, or should it use the Force of Law to “encourage” others to reject it?

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Bradski]

And I think the right answer is that it never truly is about just the two parties engaged in the act.

It may be the right answer, but not to the proposal in question. Or at least, the implied proposal, which assumes it doesn’t involve anyone else. Not that it does, or might or could. Nobody else involved. Period.

And really, it’s your business if someone is gay? Because she might have sex with another woman. That is seriously your personal business?

Against slavery? Don’t buy slaves.

Easy peas.

Yeah, it’s not a good argument, is it. ‘Against paedophilia, then don’t…’

 

[Bradski]

So, the political debate ultimately reduces to two questions:

1. is the action in question morally evil (against the good of the self or others?), and
2. practically speaking, should the state tolerate the deed, for whatever reason, or should it use the Force of Law to discourage others to reject it?

No. The first criteria is harm. Not someone’s personal interpretation of morality.

 

[Bradski]

Except that sodomy and the marital act are not morally equivalent.

How do you know it’s his wife? How do you know if he engages in sodomy with her? How do you know any given gay person does the same?

How is it any of your business?

 

[broconsul]

The secular world believes that consent is inherently good, so it uses consent to justify homosexuality, assistant suicide, and abortion. They consented, right? The only crimes are crimes in which one person did not consent but was forced into the activity anyway.

This is huge, and this is the key for me.

If there is no objective right and wrong, there is no value in choosing right. So the next best thing is admiring the right to choose anything at all.

 

[broconsul]

How do you know it’s his wife? How do you know if he engages in sodomy with her? How do you know any given gay person does the same?

How is it any of your business?

With a straight couple, they may or may not engage in the same sort of acts, but if a gay couple is sexually active, the marital act is simply not an option.

And if a same-sex-attracted person isn’t interested in same-sex eroticism, what’s the point of being out?

 

[broconsul]

It may be the right answer, but not to the proposal in question. Or at least, the implied proposal, which assumes it doesn’t involve anyone else. Not that it does, or might or could. Nobody else involved. Period.

I’m fighting my own hypothetical, I guess, but I think I’m right to do it. I think the premise of the atomized individual/couple simply does not exist.

 

[Bradski]

If there is no objective right and wrong, there is no value in choosing right.

How do you know if two consenting adults (assuming that they are on their own and they keep their own business to themselves) are doing something objectively wrong?

As I asked earlier, do you object to what my partner and I were doing last night? It concerned no-one else. Literally.

 

[broconsul]

How do you know if two consenting adults (assuming that they are on their own and they keep their own business to themselves) are doing something objectively wrong?

As I asked earlier, do you object to what my partner and I were doing last night? It concerned no-one else. Literally.

A spirited session of Go Fish? No objection. Unless you were lying about the cards you held, in which case shame on you.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Against slavery? Don’t buy slaves.

Easy peas.

Except that slaves are thinking and feeling human beings, and the fetuses are not.

And obviously the above doesn’t address “consenting adults.” We have prostitution and drug sales which are illegal, and I know libertarians would like to strike those laws on that basis.

As long as these activities are voluntary, they should not be made illegal.

Of course there is a very simple ethical principle which covers all the bases: “The several variants of the golden rule”. Or “the right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. Or “live and let live”. These are wonderful principles.

Everything else is “fluff”.