"Consenting adults"

[Bradski]

A spirited session of Go Fish? No objection.

Well, you’ve highlighted one problem that you’ve got. And that’s well before you even consider whether it’s any of your business or whether you think what we were doing should be allowed. And that is how in the blue blazes do you know what we were doing?

Are you now going to list something that you might find objectionable and then suggest that we shouldn’t have been doing it? In which case you are going to have to ask me what I was going. And I think that you know exactly what the answer to that would be. Exactly the same answer as you would give:

‘Buddy, it’s none of your damn business’.

 

[mjs2001]

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.

I would first explore their own limits to that question. For example, does your friend think it’s okay for consenting adults to shoot each other up with heroin? Burn leaves in their backyard on a dry day? Build a nuclear bomb? Make a suicide pact? Torture animals?

By asking questions, you’ll find some behavior that they don’t want consenting adults to do because of the potential danger to others, themselves, society, or the environment. You can then use that as a basis to let them understand why you object to the behavior to which you object.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

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?

It becomes my business when they take it outside the privacy of their own home and into the public sphere. For example, I’ve had teammates bragging about sexual exploits in the locker room before and after practice. While it’s not any of my business when they’re in private, once they start bragging about it in public it becomes my business because now they’re making me uncomfortable. At that point I have to take some form of action. I can leave the locker room, confront them and ask them to stop, or hide behind my noise-cancelling headphones until time for practice. Just letting it go is not an option.

At a macro level, if their actions are causing harm to society, then it becomes our duty as citizens to take a stand and tell them to stop.

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?

A person may come out about their same-sex attraction because they recognize they face a difficult struggle to live according to Church teaching and are seeking the help and support of family, friends, and their parish community.

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

By the end of the first trimester, a fetus has it’s own DNA, blood type, heart beat and brain waves, in addition to fully-developed organs and skeletal structure. They can feel pain as early as 8-1/2 weeks. How exactly is this NOT a thinking, feeling, human being? And if it’s truly not a human being, why are the remains so valuable for human research?

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

Snorting cocaine or shooting up with heroin is entirely voluntary. Should these voluntary practices be made legal?

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”.

If the right of your fist ends where another person’s nose begins, how does abortion fit in? How do you say I have no right to physically harm you, but a woman has the right to end the life of her unborn child?

 

[Bradski]

While it’s not any of my business when they’re in private…

Can’t argue with that. I think we’re all agreed that when we’re talking about consenting adults we are talking about what they do in private. Otherwise, as you quite rightly said, you haven’t consented to listen to details about it in public.

 

[Godconvertedme]

Say my child wants to eat cake four times a day and nothing else. Eating cake would make him or her happy, so I should let them, right? No, if I didn’t love them, I would let them eat cake all day, but I do love them. So I refuse to let them as a good father.

Same goes with this situation, not to tell them the truth or worse, to tell them it’s ok, is a lie. I lie to people I don’t care about. If I cared, I would tell them the Truth, in love, no matter the cost to myself.

 

[Bradski]

Same goes with this situation, not to tell them the truth or worse, to tell them it’s ok, is a lie. I lie to people I don’t care about. If I cared, I would tell them the Truth, in love, no matter the cost to myself.

But what are you telling them the truth about? The fact that whatever it is they are doing is none of your business means that you have no idea what they are doing. Do you ask all your friends what they get up to in private? If you do then I can’t see you having a very busy social life.

If you believe that what people do IS your business, then could you explain to me how you go about making it so? You are going to need to know what they are doing. Are you going to ask everyone you meet?

I have no problem with you deciding to tell everyone you meet what you consider to be immoral behaviour but I have the strongest possible objection to you asking people what they do in private so you can make a judgement on it. If you were to ask me, then the discussion would not end well, as I’m sure it wouldn’t if someone asked your wife what she was doing with you last night. I’m pretty certain that your response would be unqualified:

‘Buddy, it’s none of your damn business’.

 

[meltzerboy]

Say my child wants to eat cake four times a day and nothing else. Eating cake would make him or her happy, so I should let them, right? No, if I didn’t love them, I would let them eat cake all day, but I do love them. So I refuse to let them as a good father.

Same goes with this situation, not to tell them the truth or worse, to tell them it’s ok, is a lie. I lie to people I don’t care about. If I cared, I would tell them the Truth, in love, no matter the cost to myself.

However, these consenting adults are not your children. If you truly love them, I think you should leave them alone and let them use their own mind to make their own decisions according to their own moral, spiritual, and religious values, not according to yours.

 

[Memaw]

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 it’s sinful, God NEVER consents. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Lucretius]

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

The Good is known objectively through the Natural Law. To deny the Natural Law is to say there is no good: an inherent denial of human fulfilment and happiness. Such a view is just a dressed up nihilism.

Moral relativism makes those with money and Power the true deciders of morality, because, without an objective standard, the only standard left is the one those with the guns enforce. Not really a promoter of human happiness, right?

Relativism leads to Statism, and doesn’t allow one to denounce the Holocaust. All a relativists can say is “different strokes for different folks, and I just personally disagree with Hilter’s.” Such a wicked and dumb philosophy. Most who follow it aren’t wicked, because they don’t actaully contemplate their own beliefs, and usually just use relativism to justify having illicit sex and getting an abortion. Just goes to show how disintegrated and incoherent the modern worldview is.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

 

[Pallas_Athene]

By the end of the first trimester, a fetus has it’s own DNA, blood type, heart beat and brain waves, in addition to fully-developed organs and skeletal structure. They can feel pain as early as 8-1/2 weeks. How exactly is this NOT a thinking, feeling, human being? And if it’s truly not a human being, why are the remains so valuable for human research?

So before the first trimester it is NOT a thinking, feeling human being. Do you support abortion before that? Whether a fetus is a human BEING is contingent upon the definition of what makes a “human BEING”. Catholics assert that the infusion of the SOUL is the deciding factor. But they cannot define what the soul IS, and there is no teaching about when the “ensoulment” occurs.

Snorting cocaine or shooting up with heroin is entirely voluntary. Should these voluntary practices be made legal?

Of course. There was a case in Germany where two persons made an agreement, whereupon one killed the other one, and made a dish out of the meat. Since it was consensual, there is nothing wrong with it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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 is everybody’s business because no man is an island entire unto itself.

We are our brother’s keeper. If we do not lift each other up, who will?

 

[davidv]

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

What forces me to respond to every effect on me?

 

[davidv]

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

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.

Did I say the effect was detrimental? Those are you words not mine.

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.

 

[Sarcelle]

if it’s sinful, God NEVER consents. God Bless, Memaw

Well it may be immoral and sinful but do you recommend that it be illegal? If so, how are you going to be enforce it?

 

[CatholicHockey7]

So before the first trimester it is NOT a thinking, feeling human being. Do you support abortion before that?

I do not support abortion at any point. But there is no need to abort BEFORE the first trimester because by definition there is nothing before the first trimester. The first trimester begins when sperm and egg meet and form a zygote. Anything before that is not a pregnancy. You have sperm, you have egg, but they do not meet. Everything I listed occurs DURING the first trimester.

Also, did you miss the part about BRAIN WAVES and FEELING PAIN?

Whether a fetus is a human BEING is contingent upon the definition of what makes a “human BEING”. Catholics assert that the infusion of the SOUL is the deciding factor. But they cannot define what the soul IS, and there is no teaching about when the “ensoulment” occurs.

Although I am Catholic, I have not once mentioned faith in my arguments. I point to science and logic, which has concluded a zygote (formed the moment sperm fertilizes egg) is a life. It is a HUMAN life because it has HUMAN DNA which governs it’s actions for the rest of development.

Furthermore, since you brought up ensoulment, here is a great answer to your question about ensoulment.

I’ll quote my favorite part, which I think is most relevant here, which is a quote from Evangelium Vitae:

Even if the presence of a spiritual soul cannot be ascertained by empirical data, the results themselves of scientific research on the human embryo provide a valuable indication for discerning by the use of reason a personal presence at the moment of the first appearance of a human life: How could a human individual not be a human person?

The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life. (EV 60)

Of course. There was a case in Germany where two persons made an agreement, whereupon one killed the other one, and made a dish out of the meat. Since it was consensual, there is nothing wrong with it.

The fact that you see nothing wrong with someone consenting to be killed and eaten says a lot.

 

[Glomung]

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.

What “consenting adults do in their own time” affects others. We can thank those consenting adults of the past for the venereal diseases which have killed millions over the centuries. We can also thank them for destroyed marriages, child slavery in the sex trade, pornography, and a host of other ills. Actions do not occur in a vacuum. Even discounting the affects of sin upon the soul and the moral degeneration that goes with it, bad behaviors will reap bad consequences, both for those engaged in the actions and for the innocent who are not so engaged.

 

[on_the_hill]

Paying too close attention to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes gets on that slippery slope that leads to “Thought Police.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Paying too close attention to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes gets on that slippery slope that leads to “Thought Police.”

In case you didn’t know it, the Thought Police of political correctness has already arrived.

One of their Commandments?

“Pay no attention to what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home.”

 

[on_the_hill]

In case you didn’t know it, the Thought Police of political correctness has already arrived.

So why would I want to buy into their philosophy?

 

[Lucretius]

However, these consenting adults are not your children. If you truly love them, I think you should leave them alone and let them use their own mind to make their own decisions according to their own moral, spiritual, and religious values, not according to yours.

Hi meltzerboy

I think the debate is not that people should be left to make their own decision absolutely, because that’s just anarchy. Rather, the question everyone is debating is what decisions should the state judge? Our culture is moving to one which decisions like suicide, drug use, abortion, and sexual activity are not being judged by the state,and I know that the Natural Law at least calls for two of those things to be prohibited by a just state.

What’s worse in this debate is that not only is the state now tolerating moral evil (which it always had to), but now it is encouraging, endorsing, amd accepting it. If a free country is one which makes it easy to make free choices, a just country is one that makes it easy to be righteous. However, our country is making it easy to be wicked, which makes it wicked.

Finally, many of us more traditional folks have noticed that the state is now beginning to discriminate against those who hold traditional, rational, and sane views on marriage, sexuality, suicide, abortion, and drug use (it doesn’t help that many of us seem to hold uneducated views on Islam, evolution, and climate change, however ). We are being told that all views are acceptable, except for ours, and we see that many of those with power in our country, be it political, monetarily, or in the Media, have a hatred of our views, and especially have a hatred of Christianity.

Anyway, I actaully agree with you! The Church was formed without the state, and when the state was “Christian,” it still operated like the world: by oppression, manipulation, greed, and force, unlike authentic Christianity, which operates with freedom , love, reason, and Grace/conversion of heart. The law killeth: the state forcing others to follow the moral law doesn’t save their souls, and probably makes it harder to follow it. It just oppresses them. The problem is that the State is not staying neutral on enforcing the moral law: it is actively encouraging breaking it. The tolerant are intolerant of anyone who rejects tolerance: anyone who thinks one lifestyle is better than the others, and rejects relativism, will be rejected: remember Socrates and those tolerant Athenians, or the early Christians and those tolerant Romans? Egalitarianism only tolerates itself.

Anyway, Christians should work to convert hearts, and then virtue will follow. The Law of the state forcing virtue doesn’t lead to virtue: just unhappy people.

Christi pax,

Lucretius