If two people consent to something?

[Johndigger]

One of my friends that I was talking to say that if two people consent to something, that makes it moral, the context was sex before marriage.

Is there a good answer refuting this?

In Christ,

JD

 

[Ravyn_Guiliani]

“two wrongs don’t make a right”–LOL
seriously, God’s morals are not dictated by man.
Hitler did not stand alone. Did that make him moral?

 

[Johndigger]

“two wrongs don’t make a right”–LOL
seriously, God’s morals are not dictated by man.
Hitler did not stand alone. Did that make him moral?

Sorry, I didn’t make myself clear - the parties that he was affecting (The Jews, Russians, Brits, Americans) didn’t agree with his actions against them, so the analogy doesn’t quite hold…

The example I was really looking at was that if two people consent to something to sexual outside marriage, why doesn’t that make it moral?

She isn’t very religious, so I need quite a secular defence…

JD

 

[Liberanosamalo]

An action’s morality is independent of consent. If two people agreed that one person should shoot the other (say one person was in a hospital bed and didn’t want to be there anymore) that doesn’t make it right.

Sadism and masochism is beneath our dignity as human beings. Just because two sick people enjoy and consent to demeaning actions doesn’t mean they are moral.

Two people could agree to get drunk together. Doesn’t make it moral.

Two people could agree to a suicide pact. Doesn’t make it moral.

Two people could agree to rob a bank together…

All sin has social consequences. Some are just more immediately felt.

 

[AspiringDeacon]

If you Google on “Pope” and “objective truth”, you will find tons of stuff - talks, papers, and homilies, from both Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI on the topic. This is a deep topic and their thoughts are very well presented.

In short, the fallacy of two people deciding to do something, and agreeing it’s moral because it doesn’t hurt anyone, is that it establishes that standard for anyone and de facto establishes that there is no moral standard for people.

So would it really be a good world to live in if two people agreed to things that someone else would think as intrinsically evil? Those that believe in God and a set of objective moral truths established by him, do know that someone is ALWAYS hurt in these situations; it could be them or even someone else. This agreement affects or family and friends, what if there is a pregnancy and that life is affected, etc.

So bottom line, either you decide to live your life to the objective moral truths established by God, or you don’t. Now the Popes explain this way better than I, but I wanted to give you some idea about it instead of just saying “Google it”

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

Hi Johndigger,

I don’t understand the scenario: “two people consent to something.”

I mean, if one person didn’t consent in your context, then that would be rape.

So, basically you’re suggesting that sex before marriage is moral - and that has never been Christian teaching.

 

[Johndigger]

Hi Johndigger,

I don’t understand the scenario: “two people consent to something.”

I mean, if one person didn’t consent in your context, then that would be rape.

So, basically you’re suggesting that sex before marriage is moral - and that has never been Christian teaching.

Obviously, it’s immoral that when one person doesn’t consent to sex - it’s rape.

However, when both of the people consent to pre-marital sex, it’s not immoral because both people are consenting.

So, I guess, it’s a form of moral relativism. Morality is formed by consent between two parties, rather than an objective law.

I’m looking for two things, really.

Firstly, some kind of proof of objective morality, which Aspiring Deacon has given me a fairly good starting point.

Secondly, some kind of refutation to the specific moral relativism that she is talking about.

Hope this makes things clearer.

JD

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… Morality is formed by consent between two parties…

“two parties”? What about God?

I think Morality is formed by conforming to standards/rules/teachings. I think you’re getting yourself into trouble if you leave God out of the equation. :twocents:

If it’s just between you and your partner, then I guess it’s none of my business.

 

[Johndigger]

“two parties”? What about God?

I think Morality is formed by conforming to standards/rules/teachings. I think you’re getting yourself into trouble if you leave God out of the equation. :twocents:

If it’s just between you and your partner, then I guess it’s none of my business.

She’s not my partner.

And I think definitely, things get a lot more complicated when God is left out of the equation. However, that is the position she is in, at the moment, God doesn’t really play a big part in her life. So, that’s why I’m looking for a defence that doesn’t really involve religion.

I asked on a public internet forum, bro. I don’t mind you giving advice, at all.

God Bless,

JD

 

[PennitentMan]

Sexual promiscuity.

I heard this from an appologist a while ago, I hope I get the point accross.

Here’s the deal.
They will say that two consenting adults doing sexual things behind closed doors only concern the two of them.
But the catch is that it doesn’t.

What they do behind closed doors carries with it the possibility of all kinds of STD’s.
If they go to the doctir for those things, or buy drugs, this affects the health care system.
Today millions of people are “minding their own business” behind closed doors, but what they are doing is by their own actions they are driving up costs of healthcare, and thatin turn drives up the payments each of us make.

On a bigger scale:
If none of this “consenting adult” stuff ever happened, if everyone only had sex with their wifes and no one else, and singel people would all abstain, no one would have to go to the doctor for any STD’s and abortion levels would drop to next to nothing, and that will drain the system FAR FAR less than it is right now.

So actually it’s false to say that they are not hurting anybody…it’s affecting everyone.
Even if God was left out of this equasion, this would still be the case.

I hope I expressed msyelf good enough.

 

[briang72]

And I think definitely, things get a lot more complicated when God is left out of the equation. However, that is the position she is in, at the moment, God doesn’t really play a big part in her life. So, that’s why I’m looking for a defence that doesn’t really involve religion.

Johndigger, you are trying to accomplish the impossible. If you have to build a case against a moral issue while excluding God/religion from the defense, you’ll have a better chance of getting a camel through the eye of a needle. Change the subject to God in general. If He cannot be introduced into the conversation, I feel you are wasting your energy dancing around Him to thoroughly explain the immorality of this situation.

 

[Sure]

It’s a tough one.

Start with examples of things that two consenting adults could do that are obviously not good/healthy. (stay with me here)

Cut each other with razor blades.

Amputate toes.

Drink until they are violently ill.

Suffocate each other until they pass out.

Feed each other until they become ill.

Why can’t they do these things as long as they both consent?

Because there is a dignity inherent in the human person and such acts are an affront to that dignity. Acts have meaning and purpose. And acts that debase human value are wrong.

Now talk about the value and meaning of sex. Using sex outside of marriage is a debasement of human value just like the acts above. The only way they can argue that it IS moral is to argue that acts DON’T have meaning and the persons DON’T have intrinsic value.

Don’t expect them to change from your argument.

Pray for them.

 

[Johndigger]

Good points Sure and Brian.

Without God any Catholic moral stance is going to lack its full meaning, so opening up the topic a bit might help.

Also, I agree, we don’t live in a vacuum, whether we like it or not, our actions have an affect on others even if we can’t see the immediate consequences.

In Christ,

JD

 

[Prodigal_Son]

One of my friends that I was talking to say that if two people consent to something, that makes it moral, the context was sex before marriage.

Is there a good answer refuting this?

In Christ,

JD

If two people consent to take heroin together, does that make it moral? Of course not.

Therefore, her logic – that consent determines morality – is wrong.

From a secular standpoint, this is the way to combat her argument. It does not prove that premarital sex is wrong, but it *does *prove that her reasoning is faulty.

 

[thechrismyster]

One of my friends that I was talking to say that if two people consent to something, that makes it moral, the context was sex before marriage.

Is there a good answer refuting this?

In Christ,

JD

legally, two adults can’t enter into a bilateral contract if the thing they agree to is unenforceable due to the contract containing an illegal action on the part of one or both parties.

if applied to Church law, since fornication is an illegal act, the contract or consent would still be void since its not defensible. Rendering the act of fornication immoral regardless of the contract or consent.

 

[Liberanosamalo]

Good advice here. And the key here is that just because the negative effects of something aren’t immediately felt, does not mean the action is even good on a practical level.

God always forgives. Man sometimes. Nature… never.

Premarital sex is a hidden landmine. It lies buried and silent. And its effects may not be felt until years later. Long after the initial couple is broken up and each have moved on… their experiences, their bond, their expectations all erupt in the new relationship. And the damage affects people who were NOT party to the original two consenting adults.

Sin always has social consequences. And often those consequences are felt by people who had no benefit from the pleasure of the sin, but all the consequences of the fallout from it:

• A future husband or wife who has trouble getting past images of their beloved with someone else.
• Insecurities and issues resulting from the end of a relationship that was too intimate and didn’t last. Premarital sex is speaking a permanent language in a temporary relationship.
• Physical diseases (HPV, etc.) from intercourse with people who have not been monogamous either…

-Possible pregnancy, introducing the most innocent victims of sin into the mix.

I would ask these people how many people they plan to give themselves away to in their lifetime. One? Well, then get married and then do it. If this person isn’t the one you plan to marry… then what? Two? Three? Four? How many years do you play the consenting adult game before you realize you have a “new title” in life? (And it ain’t a word I’d want to be called…)

Just because two people consent to something stupid, illegal, impractical or immoral doesn’t make it right. It just means they aren’t alone in their stupidity.

 

[JFonseka]

Then if me and the rest of the world agreed killing you in the most torturing way is OK. Therefore it’s ok.

This is relativism. Google relativism. Specifically catholic teaching. Perhaps JPII’s or even BXVI’s.

 

[Wammy101]

One of my friends that I was talking to say that if two people consent to something, that makes it moral, the context was sex before marriage.

Is there a good answer refuting this?

In Christ,

JD

There’s nothing wrong with sex before marriage.
As long as the 2 parties are consenting and of sound mind, hey, why not?

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

There’s nothing wrong with sex before marriage.

I’m sure you know all about sex. But I suspect you don’t understand what the sacrament of marriage is all about.

As long as the 2 parties are consenting and of sound mind, hey, why not?

Because there is a third party involved - and that is Love. Love is a person. Love is God and God is Love (see 1 John 4:8).

You can make anything seem right providing you dismiss some of the relevant parties.