Son of Jack
New member
Adultery seems obvious with regard to harm. There are more than just two people involved in that situation.
Consent, Legitimacy, and Sexual Behavior
- Thread starter Son of Jack
- Start date
Adultery seems obvious with regard to harm. There are more than just two people involved in that situation.
No, consent alone is insufficient or you could have people fighting in the streets and nothing to do about it. So there are other factors to consider, but the foundational one is whether the state serves a legitimate interest in interfering in your business. That's when we get into standards of review.
Part of that is practicality. We can't really criminally prosecute and penalize people for acting on their biological urges consenseually. And there's a question as to whether we should, whether if falls under the umbrella of what should rest between people and their consciences.
Polygamy is a tough one in the abstract, though how it has tended to play out might make the argument against it easier. Incest is attacked from any number of angles, from the broad destabilization of the family unit to the inherent coercive nature of power structure within a family and that's before you get to objections from a genetically problematic perspective. It hits so many notes the sum would seem to rise to a level inviting abrogation.
I'd agree, but I don't think anyone intimate with the law would advance that singular a posit.
my wife chose to privately and voluntarily enter into a relationship with a co-worker
they were both adults
it affected me, my marriage, our kids, our extended families, etc, etc....
Adultery DOES always include a victim. That would be the spouse ... and the adulterous parent is setting a bad example for the children.
However, unless some physical harm is done due to adultery (such as a life threatening disease), I would be fine with the adulterous spouse not spending a day behind bars, but instead losing custody and paying financial restitution to the spouse and children until the day he/she dies.
Oh, and a nice large Capital A branded on their forehead would be good ...
Same here!
Why would i need to deal with it? Jesus clarified marriage and intent in Matthew Chapter 19. What God allows and what God ordains isnt the same thing. I would have hoped people could read the downfall of men who wanted more and how God warned them about having it.
Society, who is led to believe God didn't mean what He said about it, Society who no longer sees a clear picture of marriage as God intended it, to create spiritual and literal children.
Children who are adopted by gays being denied a father and a mother...
PureX
Well-known member
To be honest, I don't believe anyone here has ever suggested that "consent equals legitimacy". Children can consent to sexual intercourse, but that consent is not legitimate, because a child cannot fully grasp what they are consenting to. And I have never seen anyone suggest otherwise. A mentally disabled individual likewise can consent to sexual intercourse, and likewise, that consent is not considered legitimate for the same reason. And likewise, I have seen no one suggest different.
I think you've created an opponent, here, that doesn't exist; who you believe is proposing an ideal that no one is actually proposing. Because you're taking the term "consent" far too literally and simplistically.
Son of Jack
New member
I've seen a number of occasions where someone has used the terminology of "these are two consenting adults" to justify the activity that follows. Buzzword, in fact, used terminology very close to that earlier in the thread. So, I disagree with the notion that I'm tilting at windmills.
Son of Jack
New member
I'd mostly agree. While there are many examples of polygamy in the OT, most (if not all) cases of it led to major problems, often during the lifetime of the participants and always later between the offspring of the different parents.
Again, I'd agree. If we read Paul correctly in Ephesians 5:22-33, then the relationship between a husband and wife mirror the relationship between Christ and the Church. Thus, a distortion of the former leads to a grave misunderstanding of the latter.
PureX
Well-known member
The fact that someone used the term "consent" in relation to sexual activity that you do not condone, but that they do, does not mean that they condone all sexual activity via the term "consent". And I would think that should be obvious, for the reasons I stated above.
So you are, in fact, disparaging an argument that does not exist. As no one is suggesting that "consent" does not have any determining limitations regarding it's "legitimacy". Only you.
Son of Jack
New member
Which is why I've asked the question. As I stated in the OP, I am interested in showing that consent isn't the best determiner of legitimacy of sexual behavior. Is it true that people use the terminology of consent to justify some behavior? It seems obvious that they do. Nowhere have I attempted to claim people believe that consent excuses all sexual behavior, only that consent is used to legitimatize many behaviors that have been stigmatized in the past. So, if consent is applied inconsistently, then it shouldn't be used as a test for legitimacy.
you all are really arguing about what consent is
real consent can be used in the legal sense
real consent can be used in the legal sense
PureX
Well-known member
People use the term 'consent' in relation to sexual activity not to indicate "legitimacy", as you are presuming, but to infer the individual's right to make their own choices about the sexual activities they engage in. And I suspect this is what you are really objecting to. Because you want some external religious concept of morality to make those choices for us. Isn't this so?
In fact, it's because you have this idea of an external religious moral authority that you are applying the idea of "legitimacy" to the subject of sexuality in the first place.
You can couch this however you want, but it certainly appears to me to be just another attempt by a proponent of the religious right to justify telling everyone else how to live. Why are you people so obsessed with controlling the lives and minds of others, anyway?
shagster01
New member
Son of Jack
New member
So, you're good with adultery?
Son of Jack
New member
I won't respond in detail to the rest of the post because it is an exercise in "you people"-ism (which is just unnecessarily and ridiculously condescending). What I find interesting is the fact that you claim the invalidity of my supposed approach based on the idea that it is grounded in an external religious moral authority, when, in fact, you also lay claim to an external moral authority (namely, the rights of individuals to make their own choices). You see, we both have an external framework for making legitimate choices about sexual activities. What we disagree about is which is true and right. The purpose of this thread is simply to question the validity of the method for making choices about sexual behavior based on consent, which is rooted in the methodology and framework you've basically proposed above.
shagster01
New member
Would it hurt worse than your spouse saying they hate you and wish you were dead, for example?
I'm not ok with either, but I don't think they should be criminal or anything. Life is hard.
I'll try again. It's not singularly determinative, but it's important. The lack of consent, through coercion, fraud or force tends to be at the root of impermissible contract and conduct. So as baselines go, starting points, it's a pretty good one.
But criminal activity can meet that, so there's obviously more involved. Typically an examination of the conduct in terms of its impact on other right and the state itself. That is to say there are competing interests.
Justify? How do you mean? That's more typically the word used by someone who disapproves to people who don't. So one man's explanation becomes his opponents "excuse" if you would. I suspect that when someone says, "They're consenting adults" what they're saying isn't an attempt to justify, but an argument in brief that what's happening in the instance, objectionable as it might be to you or me or the Hindu guy down the street, is that our subjective objection fails in the face of that absent more, that it's really and ultimately their business and not ours.
But that needn't be the case. I'd note consent and the following argument for people engaging in fornication. "Legitimization" doesn't enter in, because that's another "excuse" word. A thing is legal or it isn't. You can use your right to accomplish it or you can't. The morality of it is a separate matter and the valuation on that point will vary from perspective to perspective.
:e4e:
Then you agree that adultery harms others besides the consenting parties, which was the point... :bang:
shagster01
New member
Yes. It hurts other people's feelings.