• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Consenting Adults

Why is that legal and moral concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other. They don't need my permission or that of anyone else.

Unrepentant, consenting fornicators and adulterers can drop down into Hell when they die too (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Revelation 21:8, etc.).

They make their own bed and destiny!
 
Unrepentant, consenting fornicators and adulterers can drop down into Hell when they die too (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Revelation 21:8, etc.).

They make their own bed and destiny!

Just curious... How'd you come up with your username?
 
No for gay couples who wish to marry.
1-Is there some movement to ban gay marriage I am unaware of? I thought this was settled law?

2-To your point and why your example is 'wrong'...your plaintiff wail is to let people do what they want TOGETHER...that has never been a problem. People have been able to be gay. But when you begin discussing 'marriage' you are now talking about a societal construct...a legal institution which 'people' are not entitled to and certainly not entitled to dictate to terms based on their wants.
 
How can we be so sure that it's fully consenting? Does a father hold any influence at all over their children?

I can tell you sometimes it sure doesn't feel that way, lol.
 
Well, I would consider it a gray area, but I see your point.


I have more than heard of it. In many cases consent is unambiguous. But I've known of marriages that had gray areas (not mine).
maybe like very religious people or folks that has moved here from another country that aren't familiar with our customs.
 
I can tell you sometimes it sure doesn't feel that way, lol.

That maybe so and I have no idea how your relationship is with your children. I have never had the opportunity to be a father. But I've been a son. Even if you and your child get on horribly you still have influence over them believe it or not.
 
One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other. They don't need my permission or that of anyone else.
Although, I am sure based on the changing attitudes to the "gay marriage" controversy the bulk of opposition is well addressed by this point and people who find gayness uncomfortable. I would bring up to those of which that is obviously untrue, such as gays themselves, whom still hold this position. The reasonings I have heard are three fold:

1: These law(s) will be used to harass rather than defend people of fair discrimination such as in the case with Jack Phillips.

2: Marriage laws are designed around setting up families; which, yes can still apply in some cases but is not the norm. (i.e. gays don't really want to marry in the traditional sense - they just don't like to be told they can't)

3: Slippery slop. Marriage is a traditionally defined institution designed for societal stability and enforcing established cultural norms. To open up on any new grounds is to set the precedent to legalize: incest [which I see you have disgust], polygamy, beastality, child marriage, etc. These all have cultural precedence outside the traditional judo-christian culture and can be legitimized via a doctrine of tolerance.

My personal opinion is I fully agree with your above statement and especially in light of current family courts the government should avoid all this and get rid of any definition of marriage; hence, policed via current cultural norms to which one belongs with the legal boundaries fortified via other laws like 'age of consent'. People are welcome to make their own legal abiding 'marrige contracts' then as they see fit or is their family tradtion. Failing that though, of course gay marriage / polygamy should be recognized as it conforming to the standards set out in current legal definition and culture. Gender / party size is irrelevant.
 
That maybe so and I have no idea how your relationship is with your children. I have never had the opportunity to be a father. But I've been a son. Even if you and your child get on horribly you still have influence over them believe it or not.

Oh, I know. I was just being snarky. I feel this thread is a bit of a joke. We are over complicating something that should be simple.
 
Why is that legal and moral concept so difficult for some people to grasp?

One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other. They don't need my permission or that of anyone else.
:lamo

Some people are struggling with a very simple OP.
:lamo:lamo

Very shallow broad brushed approach that is not always as simple as it seems... except to the more shallow thinkers who skim topics, jump to a hasty feel good solution and then never really delve into what evil they may unleash, that they so often do inflict by pushing their silly little vapidities.

Why don't the two of you struggle with something as simple as this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding

In one of the most extraordinary trials in German criminal history, the self-confessed cannibal admitted that he had met a 43-year-old Berlin engineer, Bernd Brandes, after advertising on the internet, and had chopped him up and eaten him.

It was, he said, something he had wanted to do for a long time. "I always had the fantasy and in the end I fulfilled it," Meiwes told the court on the first day of his trial for murder in the nearby city of Kassel.

Yesterday German prosecutors described how Meiwes had fantasised about killing and devouring someone, including his classmates, from the age of eight.

The desire grew stronger after the death of his mother in 1999, prosecutor Marcus Köhler said.

In March 2001 Meiwes advertised on the internet for a "young well-built man, who wanted to be eaten". Brandes replied.

On the evening of March 9, the two men went up to the bedroom in Meiwes' rambling timbered farmhouse. Mr Brandes swallowed 20 sleeping tablets and half a bottle of schnapps before Meiwes cut off Brandes' penis, with his agreement, and fried it for both of them to eat.

Brandes - by this stage bleeding heavily - then took a bath, while Meiwes read a Star Trek novel.

In the early hours of the morning, he finished off his victim by stabbing him in the neck with a large kitchen knife, kissing him first.

The cannibal then chopped Mr Brandes into pieces and put several bits of him in his freezer, next to a takeaway pizza, and buried the skull in his garden.

Over the next few weeks, he defrosted and cooked parts of Mr Brandes in olive oil and garlic, eventually consuming 20kg of human flesh before police finally turned up at his door.

"With every bite, my memory of him grew stronger," he said.

Behind bars, Meiwes told detectives that he had consumed his victim with a bottle of South African red wine, had got out his best cutlery and decorated his dinner table with candles. He tasted of pork, he added.

The unprecedented case has proved problematic for German lawyers who discovered that cannibalism is not illegal in Germany.

Instead, they have charged Meiwes with murder for the purposes of sexual pleasure and with "disturbing the peace of the dead".

And if you were to hastily come to the conclusion this is just a one off:
https://www.news.com.au/world/victim-fantasised-about-being-killed-and-eaten/news-story/094fc84221ca100c8d32a78dcf6d1bbc
The men agreed to meet up in Dresden on November 4, and agreed that the killing should take place shortly afterwards, Mainda added.

Police are only just beginning their investigation, he said.

"I can't give any conclusive information yet about the actual motivation of the suspect for killing his victim. We are investigating in all directions."

The case appears to have at least some parallels with a saga that both fascinated and appalled Germany a decade ago, when confessed cannibal Armin Meiwes was arrested for the killing of an internet acquaintance. Meiwes, who captured the killing on video, said his victim answered an internet posting seeking a young man for "slaughter and consumption."

Shows the shallow thinking of some who just feel that, well, if you wanna do it, if it feels good, just do it. Pretty simple, pretty stupid.
 
:lamo

:lamo:lamo

Very shallow broad brushed approach that is not always as simple as it seems... except to the more shallow thinkers who skim topics, jump to a hasty feel good solution and then never really delve into what evil they may unleash, that they so often do inflict by pushing their silly little vapidities.

Why don't the two of you struggle with something as simple as this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding



And if you were to hastily come to the conclusion this is just a one off:
https://www.news.com.au/world/victim-fantasised-about-being-killed-and-eaten/news-story/094fc84221ca100c8d32a78dcf6d1bbc


Shows the shallow thinking of some who just feel that, well, if you wanna do it, if it feels good, just do it. Pretty simple, pretty stupid.

So sex and murder are comparable?
 
Although, I am sure based on the changing attitudes to the "gay marriage" controversy the bulk of opposition is well addressed by this point and people who find gayness uncomfortable. I would bring up to those of which that is obviously untrue, such as gays themselves, whom still hold this position. The reasonings I have heard are three fold:

1: These law(s) will be used to harass rather than defend people of fair discrimination such as in the case with Jack Phillips.

2: Marriage laws are designed around setting up families; which, yes can still apply in some cases but is not the norm. (i.e. gays don't really want to marry in the traditional sense - they just don't like to be told they can't)

3: Slippery slop. Marriage is a traditionally defined institution designed for societal stability and enforcing established cultural norms. To open up on any new grounds is to set the precedent to legalize: incest [which I see you have disgust], polygamy, beastality, child marriage, etc. These all have cultural precedence outside the traditional judo-christian culture and can be legitimized via a doctrine of tolerance.

My personal opinion is I fully agree with your above statement and especially in light of current family courts the government should avoid all this and get rid of any definition of marriage; hence, policed via current cultural norms to which one belongs with the legal boundaries fortified via other laws like 'age of consent'. People are welcome to make their own legal abiding 'marrige contracts' then as they see fit or is their family tradtion. Failing that though, of course gay marriage / polygamy should be recognized as it conforming to the standards set out in current legal definition and culture. Gender / party size is irrelevant.

Sounds like government wants to constrain behaviors and rights. Should government choose what types of sex are preferred over others? Should government decide what kinds of love are preferred over others? It sounds very anti-libertarian to me for the government to making these decisions and discriminating against certain types of love and sex through withholding a very important ultimate expression of love - marriage.

My background: I am a heterosexual male with 3 heterosexual offspring, two of whom are married. My desires and attractions would be considered highly mainstream in current or even historical American culture. Homosexuality has no lure for me, but that's just my biology talking, not some lifestyle choice I made.
 
Family is not a passing fad. We did not invent the family. It’s not a question of religion or social status: when you are born, you have a father and a mother. Life has a natural path, there are some things that should not be changed. And one of these is family.
 
Family is not a passing fad. We did not invent the family.

Who is "we"? Many tribes, past and present, place the responsibility of childraising on the whole village, not just the biological parents.

It’s not a question of religion or social status: when you are born, you have a father and a mother.

Not always.

Life has a natural path, there are some things that should not be changed. And one of these is family.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you are not entitled to tell other adults how to raise their children so long as they do so in love.
 
:lamo

:lamo:lamo

Very shallow broad brushed approach that is not always as simple as it seems... except to the more shallow thinkers who skim topics, jump to a hasty feel good solution and then never really delve into what evil they may unleash, that they so often do inflict by pushing their silly little vapidities.

Why don't the two of you struggle with something as simple as this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding



And if you were to hastily come to the conclusion this is just a one off:
https://www.news.com.au/world/victim-fantasised-about-being-killed-and-eaten/news-story/094fc84221ca100c8d32a78dcf6d1bbc


Shows the shallow thinking of some who just feel that, well, if you wanna do it, if it feels good, just do it. Pretty simple, pretty stupid.

If you don't understand what safe, sane, and consensual is, please don't confuse yourself by pretending that you do.
 
Who is "we"? Many tribes, past and present, place the responsibility of childraising on the whole village, not just the biological parents.



Not always.



That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you are not entitled to tell other adults how to raise their children so long as they do so in love.
Oh...Im sorry...I forgot to put the quotes around it. Those arent my words...they are the words of Domenico Dolce. In addition to the 'conservative' slant the OP was looking for I thought maybe he would be interested in what some gay folk might think on the subject as well. Because believe it or not...there is actually a pretty broad perspective of views on gay marriage across the social political and even racial spectrum.
 
So sex and murder are comparable?
What specifically has that got to do with anything?

They were "consenting adults" and you specifically said in your OP,

"One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other. They don't need my permission or that of anyone else."

Are you now denying that... or what?

Even then, in both cases it WAS sexual AND murderous...for all intents and purposes, so apparently so...didn't you read the articles?

Kinda requires you to revisit your original premise, eh? Think about it, refine it, that you are here promoting all things consenting adults do need be acceptable by society?

I will answer that for you, NO. All things consenting adults do is not necessarily to be allowed by society.
 
If you don't understand what safe, sane, and consensual is, please don't confuse yourself by pretending that you do.
Whatever does that have to do with the OP's very stark and, as you put it "simple OP": "One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other."? :roll:

I guess we could say you are... struggling now? :doh:lamo:lamo :2wave:
 
Whatever does that have to do with the OP's very stark and, as you put it "simple OP": "One or more consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want to with each other."? :roll:

I guess we could say you are... struggling now? :doh:lamo:lamo :2wave:

Calm down. It's not my fault you don't understand what consent is and what it implies.
 
Calm down. It's not my fault you don't understand what consent is and what it implies.
Oh, quite to the contrary

You very blatantly prove here to us that you have not the faintest idea of what the concept of whatever consenting adults want to do with each other includes.

That you cannot accept your failures just, by posting idiotic denials, highlights them. Yano? Obliviously not.
 
Oh, quite to the contrary

You very blatantly prove here to us that you have not the faintest idea of what the concept of whatever consenting adults want to do with each other includes.

Right back at you. :thumbs:

That you cannot accept your failures just, by posting idiotic denials, highlights them. Yano? Obliviously not.

If you do not understand the art of clear implication, then please don't confuse yourself by supposing that your words are of any value. It's pretty funny hearing a conservative male claim that his understanding of consent is satisfactory. :lol:
 
Right back at you. :thumbs:



If you do not understand the art of clear implication, then please don't confuse yourself by supposing that your words are of any value. It's pretty funny hearing a conservative male claim that his understanding of consent is satisfactory. :lol:
Wow!!!! was that post a full load of dunderkinder or what?

Good lord, it's like the mosquito hovering over the nudist camp... where does one start? I would have to begin with the liberal take over of public school education that would lead us to arrive here at that mosh pit of a lame reply to post.
 
Sounds like government wants to constrain behaviors and rights. Should government choose what types of sex are preferred over others? Should government decide what kinds of love are preferred over others?
Personally, only to the extent of defining rape.

Beastiality and pedophila [child marriage] are examples where I draw my line, because it is no longer none of my business. Neither animals nor children can get into contracts because they do not have the capacity to give consent. And the same imho applies to grey cases like with the mentally handicapped. As such all these types of relationships would have very clear restrictions on sexuality[absolutely barred outside this boundary] as it is rape and neither could any enter a contract so 'marriage' is off the table.

Now where I[and probably you too, since I think you agree] differ from most social conservatives, I am neither Jewish nor Christian, so the judaeo-christian restrictions on gayness and incest from the bible seems questionable. That said, I understand that is entirely because the bible does not view marriage, which is basically equivalent to sex, as about to consenting adults in love but rather as the creation of a 'family unit' based around what is best for children and society. Which is also why its standards puts a lot less restrictions than I would around say child-marriage or people of differing levels of cognitive capacity.

It sounds very anti-libertarian to me for the government to making these decisions and discriminating against certain types of love and sex through withholding a very important ultimate expression of love - marriage.
Noting stops anyone from considering themselves married that's the beautiy of libertarianism. The problem is we also must recognize our current laws were developed around the Judaeo-Christian view of marriage which views this as a family unit rather than expression of love such as you or I or other social liberals.

Since we are moving our way. I think it is important to understand we need to not just reform the definition of marriage to include more preferences but entirely reform what that entails, as this conflict is plaguing our family courts and culture. Again, the government simply getting out of marriage would be the easiest way to accomplish this; baring that, we will have issues which you'll be able to observe as the aftermath of entry of this new mismatch form [gay marriage, which i fully support] works its way through the system.
 
Last edited:
Personally, only to the extent of defining rape.

Beastiality and pedophila [child marriage] are examples where I draw my line, because it is no longer none of my business. Neither animals nor children can get into contracts because they do not have the capacity to give consent. And the same imho applies to grey cases like with the mentally handicapped. As such all these types of relationships would have very clear restrictions on sexuality[absolutely barred outside this boundary] as it is rape and neither could any enter a contract so 'marriage' is off the table.

Now where I[and probably you too, since I think you agree] differ from most social conservatives, I am neither Jewish nor Christian, so the judaeo-christian restrictions on gayness and incest from the bible seems questionable. That said, I understand that is entirely because the bible does not view marriage, which is basically equivalent to sex, as about to consenting adults in love but rather as the creation of a 'family unit' based around what is best for children and society. Which is also why its standards puts a lot less restrictions than I would around say child-marriage or people of differing levels of cognitive capacity.


Noting stops anyone from considering themselves married that's the beautiy of libertarianism. The problem is we also must recognize our current laws were developed around the Judaeo-Christian view of marriage which views this as a family unit rather than expression of love such as you or I or other social liberals.

Since we are moving our way. I think it is important to understand we need to not just reform the definition of marriage to include more preferences but entirely reform what that entails, as this conflict is plaguing our family courts and culture. Again, the government simply getting out of marriage would be the easiest way to accomplish this; baring that, we will have issues which you'll be able to observe as the aftermath of entry of this new mismatch form [gay marriage, which i fully support] works its way through the system.

Beastiality and child marriage would be excluded from my otherwise liberal definition, since there are non-consenting parties involved.

I'm down with your notion that perhaps government shouldn't be the arbiter of marriage, too.

See? I have some libertarian tendencies.
 
The only reason why people care at all is because the government has been in the business of marriage for centuries, creating an authoritative sense that you have to ask a moral arbiter for permission to have a certain kind of affirmed relationship. That immediately created a hierarchy, wherein some relationships were more valid than others. Religion, of course, had a role in this.

In the modern world, we are not troubled by scarcity of resources, traditional property values, dowry, or any of the stuff that governed old world ways of relating. And yet we still have so many hang ups about telling people what they can and can't do in their consenting, adult relationships.

I think the best thing we can do is to eventually get the government out of the business of marriage entirely. Marriage contracts should not be separate or greater than any other contract, if people want to enter into a legal contract in the first place. The government should not be deciding which relationships are "best" anymore. All the rights granted by marriages can be sorted in regular contracts and consent agreements.

An added feature of doing this is that such contracts could involve more than one person, which suits all kinds of relationships. Despite the mainstream narrative, not all people relate in a 1-to-1 monogamous way. Not everyone who develops close, intimate relationships is doing so for romance, or sex, or any specific agenda that the mainstream believes relationships are "about". I could have a close relationship with the neighbor who lives next door for 20 years yet not be married, have any interest in sharing property or having children, or even a romantic relationship, yet they may be so important to me that I may want to grant them certain rights to my life. That's MY business, not the government's.

Relationship anarchy is the way our society is heading. Anarchy, by very definition of the word: without hierarchy.
 
Back
Top Bottom