"Consenting adults"

[meltzerboy]

Does the government have the right to insist that you recycle plastic and cardboard and newsprint…for the good of society?

Does the goverment have the right to insist that gasolines meet certain emissions standards for the sake of all EVEN IF THAT COSTS YOU MORE AT THE GAS PUMP?

If we can uphold environmental standards for the health of the planet, why is it any less important to uphold moral standards for the health of our spirits?

But what about the flip side of this? If we ever have a federal law that regulates sexual activity in the privacy of one’s own home (there may already be such state laws on the books), then there may also come a day when we have a law regulating religious beliefs and practices in the privacy of one’s own home. After all, certain religious beliefs may be frowned upon by other members of society and the government. However, since religious freedom, as well as the right to gun ownership, is protected, albeit less so in recent times, by the Constitution, how about a law regarding which television shows and computer websites one is permitted and not permitted to access? That is, ones that are too violent or sexually explicit may be banned. Likewise, the books one reads and the music one listens to: should these be monitored as well for sinful content when engaged in while in the privacy of one’s own home?

 

[Randy_Carson]

BTW-

I’m on the wrong side of the planet to continue this discussion much longer, so I’ll pick it up tomorrow.

'Nite.

http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/en.../11/enhanced-buzz-wide-4103-1376492445-11.jpg

 

[Randy_Carson]

But what about the flip side of this? If we ever have a federal law that regulates sexual activity in the privacy of one’s own home (there may already be such state laws on the books), then there may also come a day when we have a law regulating religious beliefs and practices in the privacy of one’s own home. After all, certain religious beliefs may be frowned upon by other members of society and the government. However, since religious freedom, as well as the right to gun ownership, is protected, albeit less so in recent times, by the Constitution, how about a law regarding which television shows and computer websites one is permitted and not permitted to access? That is, ones that are too violent or sexually explicit may be banned. Likewise, the books one reads and the music one listens to: should these be monitored as well for sinful content when engaged in while in the privacy of one’s own home?

See post #120 where I touch on this.

 

[Bradski]

Well, to be fair, YOU have said we’re discussing situations that affect no one else. The rest of us are claiming (again, and again, and again) that such situations are actually quite rare.

The question is a bit limp if you ask: ‘Is it our business if someone does something in the privacy of their own homes that affects other people?’ The answer to that is, yes, if that something is harmful. End of discussion, on to the next thread. And it’s not rare. It happens every night at my place. Affects no-one.

Does the government have the right to insist that you recycle plastic and cardboard and newsprint…for the good of society?

Does the goverment have the right to insist that gasolines meet certain emissions standards for the sake of all EVEN IF THAT COSTS YOU MORE AT THE GAS PUMP?

If we can uphold environmental standards for the health of the planet, why is it any less important to uphold moral standards for the health of our spirits?

I notice that you slid from it being important government having ‘the right’ to do something to saying that it is important to ‘uphold’ moral standards. Are you suggesting that to uphold moral standards you have the right to dictate what I can and cannot do in the privacy of my home? If not, then could you clarify the point you were making?

Look, I think we’ve done to death the fact that you have no idea what people do at home. And you’re not going to know either. That is without actually asking them. So if you want to insist that it is your business if people are sinning, then let’s assume that some people actually make a point of telling you about it. Or that, like godconvertedme, they let you discuss the most intimate moments of their lives with their wives (let us all know when your wife is ready to discuss it, gcm).

So let’s make it personal again…

Let’s say that I sinned last night. Not sure if you want the details, but I can be specific if you need me to be. Now you (and others) claim that that is now your business. Where do we go from here?

 

[Godconvertedme]

Sorry to disappoint.

And I’m disappointed in your so-called answer, which boils down to a “It does because it does.”

Already got one, darlin’.
:kiss4you:

You mean to tell me if a teenager in Vladivostok masturbates, if a businessman in Tokyo has impure thoughts about his wife, if a college student in Prague swipes a half used roll of toilet paper from the dorm, if my dentist asks me if I’ve been flossing and I say “yes,” …all of these sins affect everyone else in the whole big entire world?

Adam and Eve ate a fruit and its affected the entire human race.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Let me begin by asking if you are under the age of 50 or over 50? You don’t have to be specific…

42

I would not because we are not covenanted to God in the same way that Israel was. Consequently, I am for personal freedom…even if I disagree with what that is going to entail. My opinion is that I have the responsibility to persuade you to become a believer…and God will deal with your heart as he has (and is) mine.

On that we agree. You can tell me what I or anybody does is wrong, but enacting rules or laws is a no-go

You can probably replace “sin” with “death”, too. That would be a hoot, wouldn’t it?

It wouldn’t make any sense what with sinless people dying at the same rate as those with only venial sins which is at the same rate as those with mortal sins. Death is an inevitability.

I equated sin in this thread with cooties because people are treating sin as this miraculous virus that is limitless in its power to spread. Supposedly two people engaging in intercourse that can’t lead to children has the power to corrupt society despite knowing seeing it, hearing it, or even knowing about it. Not since cooties has a disease been so unstoppable or immune to logic.

 

[Godconvertedme]

I equated sin in this thread with cooties because people are treating sin as this miraculous virus that is limitless in its power to spread. Supposedly two people engaging in intercourse that can’t lead to children has the power to corrupt society despite knowing seeing it, hearing it, or even knowing about it. Not since cooties has a disease been so unstoppable or immune to logic.

Just because you personally, don’t see the effect, doesn’t make it any less there. Sin is serious and comparing it to cooties show just how much you are blind to the truth. Like I’ve said before, the sin committed in private effects everyone. Especially sense homosexuals and people that engage in sex outside of marriage don’t keep it in private. That’s what coming out of the closet is all about. The glorification of sin. Which is accompanied by disease for one. This is from avert.org

Worldwide, the majority of HIV infections are transmitted through sex between men and women, and half of all adults living with HIV are women. Certain groups of people have been particularly affected and these include people who inject drugs, sex workers and men who have sex with men. - See more at: avert.org/hiv-aids-vulnerable-groups.htm#sthash.e7UtYecI.dpuf

Certain groups have been particularly affected, hmmm…

Drug users… Sin
Sex workers… Sin
Men that have sex with men… Sin

We spend billions to fight this epidemic spread by sin committed in the privacy of people’s own homes. So your argument that this sin effects no one just doesn’t take into account FACTS.

 

[Bradski]

Like I’ve said before, the sin committed in private effects everyone. Especially sense homosexuals and people that engage in sex outside of marriage don’t keep it in private.

Feel free to start a thread on people who have sex in public if you like. Before you do that, tell me how the sin I committed last night is affecting everyone.

 

[Godconvertedme]

Feel free to start a thread on people who have sex in public if you like. Before you do that, tell me how the sin I committed last night is affecting everyone.

I just did in the previous post. I feel really bad for you Brad. Your sin, keeps you from God and from being truly happy. Your sin, combined with the sins of others, effects the way God deals with your nation and with the world in general, which effects everyone. How you live effects your neighbors, your sin doesn’t go unnoticed and homosexuals are pretty outspoken about how we should except the sin that they commit in the privacy of their own home. That’s how private sin effects others, even if you kept it private, it would still effect others, except it isn’t kept private, so it made even worse. Outspoken glorification of an activity that spreads disease and encourages even more people to sin. Men who have sex with men, sex workers and drug users that use needles, people most at risk for aid and hiv, why? Because all 3 are sin, like the Catholic Church teaches and reality supports, the way God made it. The fact you don’t see how sex outside of marriage and homosexual sex hurts the people that do it most of all and that the fact that damage actually hurts people that were not directly evolved. Shows how utterly selfish and self absorbed you are. You have absolutely no love for anyone, including yourself. Immoral sexual behavior isn’t placed in movies and television shows by chaste Christians. It’s put there by people like you, who think what they do in privacy of their own home doesn’t hurt anyone.

 

[Bradski]

… even if you kept it private, it would still effect others…

If you keep saying it, then I guess you’re eventually going to believe it. Maybe others have told you it’s true often enough and you have come to accept it. But it’s a completely unfounded proposition. There is zero effect on anyone whatsoever whatever I do at home in private.

If you want to join the risible chorus of those who blame tsunamis and earthquakes on immoral behavior then I will treat those views with the contempt they deserve.

If you think that there is an effect of some sort on anyone at all, then be specific. And please, no trite ‘society is being harmed!’ No holier-than-thou messages of redemption, thanks very much. Tell me specifically who is being harmed and what that harm is. Point to someone in society. State the harm done in concrete terms. Make a case. Because all you are doing at the moment is repeating facile platitudes.

 

[nodito]

If you think that there is an effect of some sort on anyone at all, then be specific.

Bradski, could you address the hypothetical situation of the man-woman hookup that I described in Post 93? I thought I was pretty specific in describing how two consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their home might have potential effects on other people.

 

[Godconvertedme]

If you keep saying it, then I guess you’re eventually going to believe it. Maybe others have told you it’s true often enough and you have come to accept it. But it’s a completely unfounded proposition. There is zero effect on anyone whatsoever whatever I do at home in private.

If you want to join the risible chorus of those who blame tsunamis and earthquakes on immoral behavior then I will treat those views with the contempt they deserve.

If you think that there is an effect of some sort on anyone at all, then be specific. And please, no trite ‘society is being harmed!’ No holier-than-thou messages of redemption, thanks very much. Tell me specifically who is being harmed and what that harm is. Point to someone in society. State the harm done in concrete terms. Make a case. Because all you are doing at the moment is repeating facile platitudes.

I’m sorry, you choose to ignore the fact immoral sexual activity leads to disease (aids, HIV). That those diseases effect Homosexual men and other immoral people more then other population groups because God is punishing that sin. That those diseases effect people outside of the group of homosexual men, even though they committed no sin. You choose to ignore the facts, which makes you wrong, not me. Billions of dollars spent fighting an epidemic spread primarily by immoral activity. Maybe if you keep saying it hurts no one, you will start to believe it, but when you stand before God you won’t be saying it. Nature says its wrong and the Church says its wrong and God says it wrong. You conveniently skipped most of my last post, I’m guessing, because you know I’m right.

 

[Bradski]

Bradski, could you address the hypothetical situation of the man-woman hookup that I described in Post 93? I thought I was pretty specific in describing how two consenting adults doing something in the privacy of their home might have potential effects on other people.

Sounds like risky behaviour to me. Wouldn’t recommend it. A good example of potential harm that could come from two consenting adults etc.

But why did you bring it up? We’re discussing situations where there is no harm. Where no-one else is affected. A situation that occurs when my partner and I do something that you’d consider sinful in the privacy of our home.

If you think that harm is done, then tell me specifically. If you think it’s your business what I do, then tell me how this would manifest itself.

 

[nodito]

We’re discussing situations where there is no harm. Where no-one else is affected.

Are these one in the same? If no one is harmed then no one is affected? Or vice versa, that if someone is affected than someone might be harmed? I ask because you later write…

If you think that harm is done, then tell me specifically. If you think it’s your business what I do, then tell me how this would manifest itself.

I don’t bring up harm, because I think it’s tangential to whether or not something you do affects someone else. Once we’ve established whether it has affected someone else, then we can determine whether it is harmful. But you seem to see these two things (harm and effect) as one and the same. Do you see the distinction I’m making?

I think it’s important that we establish effect first, because it’s going to be a long leap to convince you that my learning about someone else’s sin could harm me. I believe it does harm me, but I realize this is the next step to demonstrating that sin effects me.

Let’s move the situation away from you and your partner (a situation I know nothing about and this is quite personal for you, no doubt), on to a hypothetical couple. Is the hypothetical couple gay? Have they told no one they are living together and romantically involved? Are they not changed by the relationship in any way such that it would affect their future relationships, partners, and families?

 

[Bradski]

I’m sorry, you choose to ignore the fact immoral sexual activity leads to disease (aids, HIV). That those diseases effect Homosexual men and other immoral people more then other population groups because God is punishing that sin. That those diseases effect people outside of the group of homosexual men, even though they committed no sin. You choose to ignore the facts, which makes you wrong, not me. Billions of dollars spent fighting an epidemic spread primarily by immoral activity. Maybe if you keep saying I hurts no one, you will start to believe it, but when you stand before God you won’t be saying it. Nature says its wrong and the Church says its wrong and God says it wrong.

You have a few problems here.

Firstly, you seem to think that sin is just about sex. I say that because it it mentioned in every one of your posts. It isn’t, but you seem fixated on it.

Secondly, you seem to think immoral sex concerns homosexuality. It doesn’t. Yet you refer to it constantly.

Thirdly, you seem to think that homosexual sex only involves men. It doesn’t. You always mention male sex but never female. Isn’t that a little sexist?

Fourth, you have absolutely no idea what I do in the privacy of my home. And I mean absolutely none. You are making assumptions and all of them are wrong. I mean literally all of them. I guess you could ask me, but you don’t have that right.

Fifth, you seem to believe that immoral sex spreads disease. It doesn’t. Sex with multiple partners is likely to do that, at least on the assumption that one partner has a communicative disease.

So you are not doing too well at the moment. The examples that you have given for potential harm are not applicable to me in any way, shape for form. They are wrong. So I will ask you again, so you can have another attempt:

If I do something immoral, in private, with my partner, what harm is going to come of it? You’ll have to give different reasons that your failed attempt earlier because, as I said, they were all wrong.

And secondly, assuming that you consider what I do to be your business, how does that manifest itself? What are you going to do about it?

And how are we going setting up your wife with access to the forum? I’d hate to think you were being less than honest earlier.

 

[Bradski]

Are these one in the same? If no one is harmed then no one is affected? Or vice versa, that if someone is affected than someone might be harmed?

Let’s move the situation away from you and your partner (a situation I know nothing about and this is quite personal for you, no doubt), on to a hypothetical couple.

In regard to affect or harm, I’m assuming that people are trying to avoid harm. And it’s difficult to get agreement on whether any given affect is harmful. So let’s stick with harm, shall we?

And no, we won’t move it away from me to a hypothetical couple. I’m using myself precisely because you know nothing about me. And I obviously know my personal situation so I can answer questions that I think are relevant quite specifically.

And I can ask, what harm do you think I’m doing in the privacy of my own home? Let’s face it, it is impossible to answer unless you know what I do. You have to make assumptions, and as we have seen, they are invariably wrong.

So to ask the question in a slightly different way, if you don’t know what someone does in private, how can you say it’s harmful? Have a think on that…

 

[on_the_hill]

That those diseases effect Homosexual men and other immoral people more then other population groups because God is punishing that sin.

And with that, ladies and gentlemen, I’m out of here. :tiphat:

 

[Pallas_Athene]

This is getting “curiousier” by the minute.

When we say that activities performed in the privacy of our home do not affect others, it is obviously intended to mean: “they have no adverse, or harmful” effect on others. So to say that as soon as you know about an act, then it affects you… is true in a very limited sense. If you say that if you just suspect that some action is taking place then it affects you, then you stretched the meaning of “affect” way beyond the breaking point.

If you say that simple knowledge “affects” you by making you “uncomfortable”, then you have a serious personal problem.

The blanket statement that “every sin affects everyone else” is too irrational to even dignify it with an actual answer. It must be denounced and ridiculed along with the person who asserts it.

 

[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?

Funny a fellow Catholic would ask that question. If someone stole your new car would you say that should be legal. or do you want the “LAW” to step in. Some laws are necessary and should be for the protection and the freedom of the common good. They are for all people, not just those of a certain religion. as long as we keep pushing GOD out of our society, things will continue to get worse. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

In regard to affect or harm, I’m assuming that people are trying to avoid harm. And it’s difficult to get agreement on whether any given affect is harmful. So let’s stick with harm, shall we?

And no, we won’t move it away from me to a hypothetical couple. I’m using myself precisely because you know nothing about me. And I obviously know my personal situation so I can answer questions that I think are relevant quite specifically.

And I can ask, what harm do you think I’m doing in the privacy of my own home? Let’s face it, it is impossible to answer unless you know what I do. You have to make assumptions, and as we have seen, they are invariably wrong.

So to ask the question in a slightly different way, if you don’t know what someone does in private, how can you say it’s harmful? Have a think on that…

If it’s a sin, God says its harmful, no matter who or where it’s done. Even atheists will have to answer to God someday, whether they believe it or not. To deny God, does NOT make him non existent. God Bless, Memaw