Consent, Legitimacy, and Sexual Behavior

[Rusha]

Yes. It hurts other people's feelings.

It also puts the spouse who didn't cheat at physical risks without their consent.

 

[PureX]

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.

We're done here.

 

[shagster01]

It also puts the spouse who didn't cheat at physical risks without their consent.

A lot of things put people at risk. Should they all be illegal? Are you willing to go down that road?

 

[Rusha]

A lot of things put people at risk. Should they all be illegal? Are you willing to go down that road?

It depends on the activity and whether or not a person consents. People have a right to risks their own lives, however, they don't have the right to risk the lives of others.

I absolutely stand behind individuals being held legally responsible for spreading a disease to another person without their informed consent.

 

[Nick M]

It also puts the spouse who didn't cheat at physical risks without their consent.

Fixed it for you.

 

[Rusha]

Fixed it for you.

There was no need.

 

[PureX]

It depends on the activity and whether or not a person consents. People have a right to risks their own lives, however, they don't have the right to risk the lives of others.

I absolutely stand behind individuals being held legally responsible for spreading a disease to another person without their informed consent.

I agree with this. It's not difficult to prove, and it would go a long way in fostering honesty about these things.

 

[Nick M]

There was no need.

Only an immoral person like you would say consent makes adultery ok.

 

[Kdall]

Only an immoral person like you would say consent makes adultery ok.

She didn't

 

[Lon]

...(though I believe they should be dropped to 16 years old straight across the board).

I think you just gave away your age or mentality :doh:

 

[shagster01]

I think you just gave away your age or mentality :doh:

Nope. Just wondering why we let people stay kids so long. Back in the day you were a man or woman at puberty. Now we let people stay kids into their early 20's.

 

[PureX]

Nope. Just wondering why we let people stay kids so long. Back in the day you were a man or woman at puberty. Now we let people stay kids into their early 20's.

Basically, I'd say the reason is education. Adults living in modern technological cultures need a lot of specialized education to become a full participant. And all that education takes time. Fifty years ago a college degree was only needed for upper management and specialist positions in society. Now days we need one just to get a job that pays a living wage. And even then we're likely to have to go back to school several times over the course of our lives.

All those years of education keep our young adults in a position of "potential participant" in regular society into their mid twenties, instead of being "equal participants". And when we treat them that way, they will behave that way.

 

[shagster01]

Basically, I'd say the reason is education. Adults living in modern technological cultures need a lot of specialized education to become a full participant. And all that education takes time. Fifty years ago a college degree was only needed for upper management and specialist positions in society. Now days we need one just to get a job that pays a living wage. And even then we're likely to have to go back to school several times over the course of our lives.

All those years of education keep our young adults in a position of "potential participant" in regular society into their mid twenties, instead of being "equal participants". And when we treat them that way, they will behave that way.

This isn't true. A few reasons:

1. More kids are opting out of college now than in any time in recent history.

2. College graduated rarely get better jobs, and start off often times with huge student load debt.

3. So what? Adults can't get educated? You must be treated like a kid while learning something?

Getting an education is no excuse to act like or be treated like a kid until you're 22 years old.

 

[PureX]

This isn't true. A few reasons:

1. More kids are opting out of college now than in any time in recent history.

They aren't "opting out", they just can't afford it as the cost of a college degree has risen dramatically, and is continuing to rise. And these folks are suffering for their lack of education with low-paying jobs. This is one of the factors in why more and more of the middle economic class is slipping into the lower class and into poverty in this country.

2. College graduated rarely get better jobs, and start off often times with huge student load debt.

Well, "rarely" isn't exactly true, now is it. And having a college degree is still a whole lot better then not having one when it comes to finding a job that pays enough to live on and raise a family.

3. So what? Adults can't get educated? You must be treated like a kid while learning something?

How do you imagine that an adult with a family pay his bills while he's getting this delayed education? And if he knows he has to get an education, anyway, why not do it before he has a wife and kids to support?

Getting an education is no excuse to act like or be treated like a kid until you're 22 years old.

People are what they are. They tend to behave according to the way they're treated, and according to how we expect them to behave.

 

[elohiym]

My question is simply, what test should be used to judge the validity of relationships? I don't think consent is appropriate.

There are no valid non-consensual relationships that I am aware of. Every relationship involves two or more parties that are mutually agreeing to the terms of their interaction. Surely, consent is part of what is valid. Nevertheless, and I think this goes to the point you are making, two or more people consenting to a relationship doesn't necessarily make the relationship lawful or moral. For example, a man cannot legally contract with women to exchange sex for financial assistance; such a contract is void even if both parties consented.

Good to see you back, brother. I just saw this thread. :cheers:

 

[Rusha]

Only an immoral person like you would say consent makes adultery ok.

Only a dishonest person would make the claim I said that ... OR line out my actual response and add their own.

 

[elohiym]

I've heard a number of people here claim that as long as it (sexual behavior of all sorts) is consensual, then it is legitimate (meaning that other people should leave them alone).

Sometimes that argument is made in the absence of other evidence that would prove the behavior immoral. There are debates among Christians as to which specific sexual acts are permissible for married heterosexuals. If my wife and I consent to non-procreative sexual behavior is that legitimate? Why or why not?

This sort of thinking has been applied to behaviors that have traditionally been stigmatized like pre- and extramarital sexual relationships and homosexuality.

The thinking has also been applied to historically stigmatized, associated behaviors like birthcontrol and sterilzation. Is it legitimate for a husband and wife to consent to birth control or sterilization when God said, "Be fruitful and multiple," etc? The litmus test you seek should answer that question as well.

But, what about cases of polygamy/andry or incest in which all of the parties concerned are consenting? Should we de-stigmatize those sorts of relationships?

Incest. The subject turns my stomach. I'll just say it's not a legitimate relationship. You mentioned Lot's story but that was an incestuous act not a incestuous relationship. He didn't consent but was taken advantage of while intoxicated. I doubt Lot considered himself married to his daughters after that unfortunate incident.

Polygamous marriages are legitimate. Whether or not I'm okay with polygamy isn't going to cause you to de-stigmatize the idea. We can only de-stigmatize a behavior through our perception.

My goal (to be transparent) is to show that consent doesn't always equal legitimacy and to suggest that consent isn't the best litmus test for allowable behaviors.

Consent is primary to a polygamous marriage. What else would you need to determine to know if it is legitimate and should be allowed?

 

[elohiym]

The Bible also had a lot of polygamy.

True enough. I'd only ask if there is a difference between what is ideal and what is permissible. Moreover, I'd ask if something changed between the principles found in the Old and New Testament because Paul seems to suggest that a biblical marriage is one man and one woman.

Regarding what is ideal versus what is permissible: under the law of God, Levirate marriage was a mandated form of polygamy. It was both permissible and ideal to care for a widow by allowing her to marry a relative in order provide her security and to give her hope for children. Why wouldn't that be ideal in this age, too?

Regarding 1 Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ can be translated as one-woman man. In 1 Timothy 5:9 Paul writes about a one-man woman ...ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. Since polyandry was not a custom of the Greeks, Romans or Jews, it follows that 1 Timothy 5:9 is not about polyandry. The terms are qualitative statements about the type of spouse they were, not statements about their legal marital status; a man could be married to one wife but still be unfaithful, and the phrase one-woman man could not apply to him. An unfaithful wife would not be one-man woman.

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.

The first monogamous union didn't cause the fall of man, right? The children of monogamous parents fight, too, right? Correlation does not equal causation. Jacob struggled with polygamy because he favored Rachael, and because he was tricked into marriage, not because polygamy wasn't ideal. Still, God gave Leah children and made her the mother of Judah. Gideon was made the judge of Israel; he had seventy sons because he had many wives. Seventy sons can help you judge a nation.

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.

The Church is made of many members. A bridegroom of one and a bride of many members is like a polygamous relationship not a monogamous relationship. Do you agree?

 

[Son of Jack]

Hey, old friend. It's been a while.

Sometimes that argument is made in the absence of other evidence that would prove the behavior immoral. There are debates among Christians as to which specific sexual acts are permissible for married heterosexuals. If my wife and I consent to non-procreative sexual behavior is that legitimate? Why or why not?

Sure. Because I can make a case, from, say, The Song of Solomon, that sex is intended not only for procreation, but also for pleasure. Additionally, I could argue that the vast majority of sex that takes place between married heterosexual couples is non-procreative. As to specific sexual acts, that's a decision that must be made between the husband and wife, but it is a decision because they have entered into a legitimate relationship. It kind of reminds me of what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 7:5.

The thinking has also been applied to historically stigmatized, associated behaviors like birthcontrol and sterilzation. Is it legitimate for a husband and wife to consent to birth control or sterilization when God said, "Be fruitful and multiple," etc? The litmus test you seek should answer that question as well.

I think we might wander off into trickier territory. My wife and I don't use modern birth control at all because of the potential to cause an intentional abortion. Sterilization is a different issue altogether. Nowhere in Scripture can I recall someone intentionally seeking sterilization. Is it immoral? I don't think so. Should it be done if there is a health risk? Yeah, I think it should. But, I think we would both agree that God wants us to be fruitful and multiply. We both believe that children are an incredible gift (one of God's best gifts to us). Should we actively seek to avoid the blessing of children?

Incest. The subject turns my stomach. I'll just say it's not a legitimate relationship. You mentioned Lot's story but that was an incestuous act not a incestuous relationship. He didn't consent but was taken advantage of while intoxicated. I doubt Lot considered himself married to his daughters after that unfortunate incident.

I wasn't really trying to use it as an incestuous relationship. I was really trying to point to the disastrous effect of an incestuous sexual act that took place in the OT. I agree that it is stomach-turning and illegitimate. I'll also agree that he didn't consent. Finally, I'd agree that he didn't consider himself married to his daughters following the incident. But, even if he and his daughters had consented, that wouldn't have legitimized the relationship or the act.

Polygamous marriages are legitimate. Whether or not I'm okay with polygamy isn't going to cause you to de-stigmatize the idea. We can only de-stigmatize a behavior through our perception.

Consent is primary to a polygamous marriage. What else would you need to determine to know if it is legitimate and should be allowed?

I'll share some thoughts about polygamy/andry in my next post.

 

[Son of Jack]

Regarding what is ideal versus what is permissible: under the law of God, Levirate marriage was a mandated form of polygamy. It was both permissible and ideal to care for a widow by allowing her to marry a relative in order provide her security and to give her hope for children. Why wouldn't that be ideal in this age, too?

The care of widows is, of course, ideal, but the fact that they are widows isn't. Thus, there were occasions where it might have been necessary and permissible, but the situation of being widowed isn't ideal (and I don't think you are necessarily trying to make that point). That said, hasn't the Church, the Body, taken care of the need of such a situation like the one you describe above. As you reference 1 Timothy 5, Paul explains to Timothy that widows are to be cared for by the Church, and if they desire to marry, then they are to marry. Wouldn't it make sense for Paul to bring up Levirate marriage, if that were ideal today?

Regarding 1 Timothy 3:2,12 and Titus 1:6, μιᾶς γυναικὸς ἀνήρ can be translated as one-woman man. In 1 Timothy 5:9 Paul writes about a one-man woman ...ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς γυνή. Since polyandry was not a custom of the Greeks, Romans or Jews, it follows that 1 Timothy 5:9 is not about polyandry. The terms are qualitative statements about the type of spouse they were, not statements about their legal marital status; a man could be married to one wife but still be unfaithful, and the phrase one-woman man could not apply to him. An unfaithful wife would not be one-man woman.

I agree that the concept of one-woman man and one-man woman is primarily focused on the idea of faithfulness. That said, one could easily infer that Paul is also pointing to the ideal of monogamous marriage. Or, do you believe that's reading too much into what Paul says?

The first monogamous union didn't cause the fall of man, right? The children of monogamous parents fight, too, right? Correlation does not equal causation.

Certainly. In both cases, these examples should be seen as descriptive and not prescriptive.

Jacob struggled with polygamy because he favored Rachael, and because he was tricked into marriage, not because polygamy wasn't ideal. Still, God gave Leah children and made her the mother of Judah. Gideon was made the judge of Israel; he had seventy sons because he had many wives. Seventy sons can help you judge a nation.

But, like I mentioned above, such examples should be seen as descriptive, lest we see the conception of Solomon as license to commit adultery (PS - I'm not really trying to make a one-to-one correlation between adultery and polygamy).

The Church is made of many members. A bridegroom of one and a bride of many members is like a polygamous relationship not a monogamous relationship. Do you agree?

Is His Bride the Body or the members? Is His Bride the Church or the individuals who make it up? I guess what I'm really asking is, is there one Church or many?