Consent, Legitimacy, and Sexual Behavior

[Son of Jack]

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.

Indeed there are competing interests. But, I'm not really thinking in terms of legality. I'm thinking in terms of ontology and morality. Our government has said that abortion is a legitimate activity, if the mother gives her consent. It's legal, but it isn't right. In the same way, I want to apply to sexuality the same type of thinking. What's true and right?

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.

It's what's happening until one seeks to determine the legitimacy of what's happening. Then, it becomes justification. If your neighbor comes to your door to question why, and you say, "I said it was fine and she said it was fine," how does that stand up as a reason?

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:

So, we might just be talking past each other. I'm not as interested in the legality of the thing as I am in the legitimacy/morality of the thing.

But, that might just make things as clear as mud.

 

[Town Heretic]

Indeed there are competing interests. But, I'm not really thinking in terms of legality. I'm thinking in terms of ontology and morality. Our government has said that abortion is a legitimate activity, if the mother gives her consent. It's legal, but it isn't right. In the same way, I want to apply to sexuality the same type of thinking. What's true and right?

Oh...I'm not sure about the point of the inquiry then. The answer to your question relies on the context of the person answering. Beyond the legal is a morass of competing interests and subjective evaluations. For the Christian homosexuality is a sin. But how we respond to it collectively is either a social/moral choice or one that moves beyond that acceptance or protest into law.

It's what's happening until one seeks to determine the legitimacy of what's happening.

See, that really looks like you've simply substituted legitimacy for justification and my answer is the same. Either a thing is permissible by right or it isn't. The rest is how we feel about that and why. I'm not passing on the importance of that to the individual, but it cannot be binding on any other without their consent.

If your neighbor comes to your door to question why, and you say, "I said it was fine and she said it was fine," how does that stand up as a reason?

Who needs reason to justify acting within the permissible parameters of the law? Why are people are allowed to use right to reflect their own moral distinctions within the letter of the law? Because it's that or what, precisely? A well meaning tyranny that suits until the next large enough body of people come along to do the same to us?

So, we might just be talking past each other. I'm not as interested in the legality of the thing as I am in the legitimacy/morality of the thing.

I'm not disinterested in the morality, I just don't see it as a thing that can be settled by argument, given the inherently subjective nature of the particular (understanding everyone convicted by the notion of an independent arbiter of moral law and consequence believes those to be objective truth while noting they cannot be demonstrated as such). Unless a person accepts the context of your moral compass they won't be convicted or convinced by your valuation. Without that context any argument will fail. So legitimacy depends on the agreement in valuation.

But, that might just make things as clear as mud.

 

[resodko]

It's legal, but it isn't right.

a natural consequence of a nation turning its back on God's Word - that which isn't right becomes legal and that which is right becomes illegal

 

[Son of Jack]

Oh...I'm not sure about the point of the inquiry then.

I was initially interested in questioning the power of concept of consent, but as we've moved through the discussion, I've been additionally interested in how the problem of "fact" versus "value"/"public" versus "private" divide as appeared and governed much of the conversation.

 

[The Beard of Zeus]

a natural consequence of a nation turning its back on God's Word - that which isn't right becomes legal and that which is right becomes illegal

Please don't tell me you think the Bible should decide laws of the land

 

[resodko]

Please don't tell me you think the Bible should decide laws of the land

"pagan", eh?


have fun burning in hell :wave2:

 

[The Beard of Zeus]

"pagan", eh?


have fun burning in hell :wave2:

Give me my creation story, symbols, and religious holidays back and I'll gladly "burn in hell."

 

[PureX]

I remember reading something years ago about how at some point in childhood development, a child has to learn the limitations of his own will. For example, when the child cries and his mother comes to him, he does not immediately realize that his mother's will is not his will. That she is choosing to respond to him, and is not an automatic response to his own will (brought about by his crying).

It's sort of like a light switch. Every time the child flips the switch, the light comes on or goes off. And so the child conflates his own will with the external effect of the light. As after all, he is oblivious of the mechanisms in between them.

It seems to me that there are a lot of Christians suffering from some version of this same inability to recognize the limitations of their own will. As they just blindly and automatically assume that their will regarding the behavior of other trumps those other people's will for themselves. And this presumption is so blind, and so automatic, and so ego-protected that to ask about it, or to try and point it out, is useless. As these Christians simply cannot, or will not see it in themselves. Or see why other people react so negatively to it.

It's very puzzling.

 

[resodko]

How do you imagine that an adult with a family pay his bills while he's getting this delayed education?

i worked a full time day job while taking night classes for my first masters degree :idunno:

 

[PureX]

i worked a full time day job while taking night classes for my first masters degree :idunno:

And just look at what an intellectual, spiritual, and emotional retard you've turned out to be. So I guess that method didn't work so well.

 

[resodko]

and i had a family and i paid my bills

 

[resodko]

it's not really all that hard to imagine :idunno:

 

[Son of Jack]

Why did the last few posts show up on this thread?

 

[resodko]

the site's been up and down today

 

[Son of Jack]

the site's been up and down today

I figured that must have something to do with it.